Private Business

Leicester City Council Bill
	 — 
	Liverpool City Council Bill
	 — 
	Maidstone Borough Council Bill

Considered; to be the read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cancer Treatment

Sharon Hodgson: If she will make a statement on waiting times for cancer treatment.

Rosie Winterton: May I apologise to you,Mr. Speaker, and the House for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health cannot be here this afternoon because of a family illness? She was able to speak to the Opposition spokesmen personally yesterday to explain her absence and I am grateful to them for their understanding.
	Cancer patients are now being diagnosed and treated more quickly than ever before, with almost 97 per cent. of them receiving their first treatment within a month of diagnosis.

Sharon Hodgson: I welcome the fantastic progress in reducing cancer waiting times through the dedication and commitment of health service professionals and the extra investment in the NHS. However, is the Minister aware that cancer waiting times after first treatment remain a problem for all cancers, including prostate and bowel cancer, that the waiting times for endoscopy and colonoscopy have been a problem in the past and that, if the bowel cancer screening programme is to be successful, it is important that sufficient resources are put in place?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks about the dedication and commitment of the staff who do such work and about extra investment, with which I absolutely agree. The problems that are due to follow-up treatments often involve radiotherapy. We have done a lot to improve radiotherapy provision. Of course, if it is a first treatment, it counts in the waiting times anyway, but there are unacceptably long waits for the second stage of treatment in certain parts of the country, so we have been increasing the number of radiotherapy staff, both in post and in training. We have been making better use of existing staff and new investment in radiotherapy treatment facilities. For example, the number of linear accelerators has increased by about 50 per cent. There is some way to go, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we take this very seriously. We are doing what we can to improve the situation, but that is against a background of increased improvements over a number of years.

Michael Gove: The Minister will be aware of the direct threat to the upper gastro-intestinal cancer unit at Frimley Park hospital in my constituency, not least because I have written to her Department three times to request a meeting on behalf of Surrey, Berkshire and Hampshire MPs, and three times I have been told no. In the last letter that I received from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I was told that a review of that decision would not be pre-empted, but I discovered the day after the letter was sent that interviews were taking place and decisions being made that explicitly pre-empted that review. Why cannot we have a meeting to ensure that that vital service, which contributes so much to health in the south-east, does not face imminent dismantling?

Rosie Winterton: We must be absolutely clear about the process that takes place when we consider changing some of the cancer facilities. This is a classic example where cancer networks must look at some of the improving outcomes guidance, which shows that putting some of the cancers together in specialist centres actually saves lives. There is very clear evidence for that, and in a sense to ask for political interference would be wrong in a process that should be looked at very closely by those involved in the networks, which include clinicians, patient groups and representatives of the NHS. It is important that the review proposals are looked at very closely by the networks involved, and that process takes place for very good clinical reasons.

Jessica Morden: I, too, welcome the decrease in waiting times for cancer care, but may I ask my hon. Friend for her assurance that cancers with lower profiles, such as myeloma, are not forgotten when we allocate resources?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that some of the high-profile cancers are not given more attention than some of the less well known ones. That is why we constantly review things. That can be done through the clinical cancer networks and through the guidance that is issued by the Department in conjunction with the profession to make sure that the very best care is available for patients who suffer in some of those circumstances.

National Programme for Information Technology

Tim Farron: If she will make a statement on the national programme for information technology.

Andy Burnham: The national programme is an essential part of creating a safer and more modern and efficient national health service. It is delivering integrated IT systems that are critical to the effective functioning of the national health service in ever-increasing numbers right across the country—not least in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Tim Farron: The Secretary of State has told us that the connecting for health computer project will now cost £6.2 billion, but the chief operating officer of the project predicts costs in excess of £15 billion. Meanwhile, Westmoreland general hospital's coronary care unit in my constituency faces an uncertain future because of deficits that pale in comparison to those overspends. Will the Minister commit today to a full, independent, technical and financial audit of the project to ensure that public money is spent on the public's priorities?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is indeed a major investment in the national health service. However, in contrast to NHS projects of the past, payment will be made only when the project is delivered. When the project is delivered, it will go further in improving patient care in the NHS. It will deliver more benefits to patients. I have looked at the hon. Gentleman's websites, where I read:
	"Local MP Tim Farron is leading national calls for an independent review".
	If he is to be the self-appointed leader of the national debate on this important issue, may I appeal for less simplistic analysis and more attention to detail? The project will improve patient care and it will not help to make exaggerated and nonsensical claims about it.

Lindsay Hoyle: Part of that information technology has been NHS Direct. Chorley was the pioneer of NHS Direct, but we found out today that the Chorley centre is about to close, along with Bolton and Preston. Who is in charge of the Department—the Ministers or the chief executive? There is something wrong when people in Preston and Bolton who are being made redundant may be allowed to go to a new site, yet the people of Chorley have not been given the same assurance. Why not?

Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."

Andy Burnham: I hope that Conservative Members are cheering the success of NHS Direct, which is dealing with a huge volume of calls this year—6.8 million. However, I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised and I understand why he is expressing them, given the news that has been put out today. NHS Direct has to take decisions to make sure that it can offer a sustainable service, given that it is handling an increasing volume of calls and dealing with in excess of 9 million internet inquiries every year. My message to him is that there will be provision in the north-west. There is a possibility that a new service—a new NHS centre—will be located in the region of his constituency. I am happy to meet him and other colleagues who are affected by the changes to discuss those issues.

David Tredinnick: I am surprised that the Minister did not mention the launch yesterday of another NHS information service at the Royal London Homeopathic hospital—the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Specialist Library. I have no doubt that he will have been fully briefed about that. That new service, which is extremely important and is backed by the Government, has one problem: many of the therapies provided by that one-stop shop are not yet available on the NHS. What is he going to do about that and what is he going to do about the alternative therapies that are available on the health service, such as homeopathy, which Nye Bevan used, but which is not widely understood or known about in parts of the country?

Andy Burnham: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in these matters. Without a shadow of a doubt, he must have a glass raised to him at the Holland and Barrett annual shareholders meeting each year. I am not trivialising his interest and he raises an important matter, so I will examine it in respect of the IT systems and the other issues that he raises and write to him.

Margaret Moran: Is the Minister aware that many Labour Members believe that the national programme will be transformatory for the health service, especially due to electronic prescribing and care service records? Will he ensure that IT systems are compatible and, in that context, investigate the Luton and Dunstable hospital and the Royal Free hospital? Electronic records have to be taxied between those two hospitals because of the mismatch of electronic data links. Will he ensure that there is compatibility so that we have a better patient service?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and perhaps the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) would do well to listen to it. The programme is being procured at a national level exactly to ensure that we get value for money with the systems and so that the systems are compatible. A key benefit of the new system will be that a patient's record will be instantly available to a clinician wherever that patient presents in the NHS. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that will be an enormous step forward that will end some of the paper chase that goes on in the NHS. It is a clear expression of why the system will deliver improvements to patient care and value for money.

Andrew Lansley: I welcome the Minister to his first Health questions.
	The Minister got right to the point about the IT system when he said that it was about delivery. The NHS needs an electronic patient record, but can he explain why it is more than two years late? The NHS also needs electronic prescriptions. According to the Government's targets, some 600,000 prescriptions should be transferred electronically each day, but the figure is in fact only about 13,000. The opportunity to make electronic bookings should mean that there are some 250,000 such bookings a month, but in fact there are only 20,000 a week. Can the Minister explain why the delivery about which he talks has so far failed lamentably on the Government's own targets?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for both the hon. Gentleman's welcome and his broad recognition that modernising the national health service in such a way is the right thing to do. Rather than claiming that there has been no delivery, I can tell him that more than 1 million prescription messages have been issued via the new system and that 325,000 hospital appointments have been booked electronically. A key aspect of the way in which the programme is working is that the NHS pays only when the service has been delivered. The NHS has thus learned from past IT procurement and is doing the right thing by paying only when benefit is released to the service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will support that approach.

NHS Nurses

George Mudie: If she will make a statement on the salaries of NHS nurses.

Caroline Flint: Investment of £1 billion in pay reform, including for nurses' pay, has delivered a high earnings growth of 2.8 per cent. between October 2004 and October 2005. We have agreed a 2.5 per cent. pay uplift for 2006-07, which will again deliver strong earnings growth this year. This is a good deal for nurses. A newly qualified nurse will earn £19,166, which is a 55 per cent. rise since 1997. I believe that that compares favourably with a newly qualified primary school teacher earning £19,161.

George Mudie: I am delighted that there has been a55 per cent. increase since 1997 and that the salary is just more than £19,000. A specialist nurse gets £23,000, so will the Minister outline whether "Agenda for Change" will give newly qualified nurses the opportunity to go on to that higher salary band?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend raises an important point. "Agenda for Change" is about completely transforming the way in which the pay bands operate to ensure that there is equal pay for equal value and, importantly, to give nurses the opportunity to progress up the scale. A senior specialist nurse can earn up to £31,000 and the salary for a nurse consultant rises up to £60,000. Part of "Agenda for Change" is job evaluation so that the skills and knowledge of individuals are examined and people can acquire skills and knowledge in order to move up the pay band.

Daniel Kawczynski: Macmillan nurses at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital earn £5,000 less although they are on the same pay grade as similar nurses in Wolverhampton, which is just 15 miles away. We are concerned that, within such small regional areas, there is such a large difference in pay, with a possibility of poaching. What can the Minister do to reassure me on that?

Caroline Flint: I think that the hon. Gentleman raised that point in the Opposition day debate last week. He should understand that, for the first time, there is a pay band that covers both nurses and non-medical staff. Key to that is the job evaluation. He should be asking at local level about the skills and knowledge that are required of Macmillan nurses in one trust as opposed to another. We do not have regional pay scales, but the purpose of "Agenda for Change" was to have that job evaluation. Key to his point is the need to see what is expected of Macmillan nurses in one area and whether that is different from another area, and to take up the issue locally. That is important in defining what pay nurses of different types get in the area.

David Anderson: What we just heard was good news, but is it good news if people looking for jobs do not have access to the benefits of "Agenda for Change"? Has the Minister had any discussions with the unions or the employers about the possibility of setting up a national redeployment, training and relocation scheme? Hopefully, that would address the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and mean that no one who wants to stay in the NHS has to leave it.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right. I am pleased to say that NHS Jobs, which acts as a billboard for vacancies in the health service—a couple of hundred jobs for nurses are on the board currently—will provide exactly what he says, which is a redeployment service for those who may find themselves without a job as changes take place in hospitals. I reassure him that, where trusts talk about job changes or losses, there might be some compulsory redundancies, but that would be a last resort and kept to a minimum. It will mostly be a case of freezing posts and making less use of agency and temporary staff. I am pleased to say that NHS Jobs will look at redeployment opportunities.

Mental Health Services

James Brokenshire: What assessment she has made of the impact of financial deficits on budgets for mental health services for 2006-07; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Benyon: Which mental health trusts are making cuts as a consequence of NHS deficits.

Rosie Winterton: Planned expenditure for mental health services in 2006-07 is still being negotiated as strategic health authorities finalise their local delivery plans. In 2005-06, 11 out of 84 mental health trusts reduced planned expenditure by £16 million overall, while the complete expenditure increased by £368 million.

James Brokenshire: I thank the Minister for her response. At the last Health questions, she assured me that mental health services were one of her Department's top three priorities, notwithstanding existing NHS deficits. If that is the case, why is mental health not included on the list of the six key national NHS priorities specified in the Department's operational framework and setting out the key principles for financial management for health trusts for this current year? Does she appreciate that the effect of that is that spending on mental health services by health trusts is likely to be frozen or cut this year as a consequence?

Rosie Winterton: We should be clear about the improvements that have taken place in spending on mental health services—an increase of something like £1.6 billion over the past five years. Also, if we consider what happened last year, again, 11 out of 84 trusts reduced planned expenditure. They were going to spend £384 million more than they spent the year before, but in fact they spent £368 million. That means that overall expenditure on mental health has increased. It is clear, through the targets that have been set and the local delivery plans, that the actions we have adopted contributed towards that increase in mental health spending. Mental health under the previous Administration was a Cinderella service, suffering from years of underinvestment, unlike the situation under this Government.

Richard Benyon: Berkshire Healthcare Trust faces cuts of £10.2 million in mental health care provision. One area particularly affected by those cuts is early intervention services which, as the Minister knows, are a key Government target in the national strategic framework for mental health. Will she carry out an assessment of the human costs of such cuts?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right that early intervention teams are important, which is why we introduced them. One of the many changes made under the Government to the delivery of mental health care is the greatly increased emphasis on care in the community. In Berkshire, I believe that the spending figure is about £200,000 less than was going to be spent, so it is not quite the same as what he suggested. I will look into his point, but I understand that the figure is about 0.1 per cent., because the overall budget is £77 million. There have been improvements in his area, and I hope that he welcomes them. I accept the point that he made about early intervention, and I will look at what cuts are proposed for early intervention teams, as I would be concerned about them.

David Taylor: Due to the actions of our Government since 1997, mental health care has recently ceased to be the Cinderella of the NHS, but it is still something of a poor relation. Can the Minister reassure the House that people and patients have not been put at risk by budget reductions, about which Louis Appleby, the national director for mental health, is unhappy?

Rosie Winterton: Given the extra investment in mental health services, we are anxious that primary care trusts and strategic health authorities should maintain a high quality of care. As I have said, when we looked at planned and actual expenditure last year, the difference was £16 million, but that does not mean that overall expenditure did not increase on mental health services. It did, and it has done so consistently in the years since the national service framework was introduced, along with new teams, modernised ways of working and increased investment. That has made a genuine difference to people who use our mental health services, and we certainly want to maintain those improvements.

Philip Dunne: Last week, Shropshire County PCT announced the closure of Whitcliffe mental health ward in Ludlow community hospital, not because of patient care needs—the patients will be transferred to the only remaining Victorian asylum operating in this country—but entirely as a result of financial deficits. The mental health trust operated at surplus in 2005-06, and it is due to break even in 2006-07, but it has been forced to make cuts and close that ward purely because of the financial deficits that affect the rest of the NHS in Shropshire. Why?

Rosie Winterton: It is difficult for me to comment. As the hon. Gentleman said, the trust will break even this year, so I am not certain why he said that that in-patient ward will be closed. In-patient wards are often closed because services are provided in the community, thus reducing the need for in-patient beds. That may be the case in his constituency, or some of the patients may be transferred elsewhere because that is more appropriate. However, he should accept that in some instances—I will, of course, look at the point that he made—those decisions are made for good reasons, as the fact that there are teams in the community may mean that there is less need for in-patient beds.

Steve Webb: On Friday, the Department of Health produced a press release headed, "End of the 'Prozac nation'—more counselling, more therapy". It trumpeted a "ground-breaking initiative", "a major new programme". What we get is a couple of pilot schemes, while in Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and other places around the country that we have heard about, front-line mental health services are being cut. Is that not another case of the Department of Health being out of touch with what is happening on the ground?

Rosie Winterton: I am disappointed by the sneering attitude that the hon. Gentleman is taking towards an initiative that has been welcomed by all the mental health charities and by mental health service users, who know the importance of psychological therapies. They know that we need to build up the case for saying that psychological therapies can be a very good alternative to drug therapies. We have always been clear in every White Paper and in our manifesto commitments that we would start a gradual programme of introducing psychological therapies. We need to show—which is why we have set up demonstration sites—the benefits of the approach not just to the individual, but to the local community. The programme is a good way of doing that, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's attitude goes against everything in which we have been supported by service users and mental health charities.

Tim Loughton: I presume the Minister was disappointed with Rethink when it published a damning catalogue of budget cuts to mental health services around the country: the closure of mental health day hospitals in Suffolk; mental health wards closed at St. George's, Tooting or forced to become mixed sex wards; and 5 per cent. cuts in Hertfordshire mental health services. Was she disappointed with the Mind report yesterday, which highlighted the absence of appropriate services for the one in six women who suffer mental health problems around childbirth, with 25 per cent. of them waiting more than six months for any support? Will she be disappointed tomorrow, when  Pulse magazine brings to Parliament general practitioners who are alarmed at its survey showing 93 per cent. of GPs prescribing antidepressants contrary to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, because of a lack of available alternatives? Does she really think that our mental health services are having their best year ever?

Rosie Winterton: Following the Rethink survey, we carried out a survey of all 84 NHS trusts whose full details we will publish tomorrow. I have been finalising everything that I want included in it. The figures show that, as I said, planned expenditure increased, but not by as much—by about £16 million less than was intended, out of a total expenditure by those trusts of £893 million. On psychological therapies and the Mind survey, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, for post-natal depression, we need to increase the services available. That is why we have set up the demonstration sites that we announced last Friday. We know that much more can be done—for example, through health visitors to assist with post-natal—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister, but we have an Order Paper which we must get through.

NHS Funding (East Anglia)

Henry Bellingham: When she next expects to meet representatives of primary care trusts and hospital trusts from East Anglia to discuss funding issues.

Andy Burnham: Primary care trusts determine how best to use the funds allocated to them to plan, develop and improve health services for their local populations. No meetings are arranged with representatives from NHS trusts in East Anglia at present, but as Minister with responsibility for the eastern region, I expect to have meetings with representatives and to visit the region in the course of my work.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn is facing a £10 million deficit? The staff have my admiration for working tirelessly trying to sort out the crisis. Is it fair on the local community that the hospital is being forced to pay a usage charge of 10 per cent. on its borrowings? Is it fair that the PCT financial uplift for the next two years has been cancelled because of PCT reconfiguration? Does the Minister agree—if he puts his hand on his heart, I am sure he will—that my constituents deserve better from the Government?

Andy Burnham: I am sure that an hon. Member of his long standing in the House and a member of his party would accept that the NHS must live within its means. The hon. Gentleman must accept that there is a combination of cost pressures on the system this year and that decisions must be taken locally. Before he rides off on his high horse and lectures the Government about NHS funding, no PCT in Norfolk will be more than 3.5 per cent. under target funding. The Norfolk PCTs have experienced a two-year increase of 22.5 per cent. against a national average of 19.5 per cent. He should look at the facts on the money going into his local health service before he dishes out criticism and says that it is all the Government's fault.

Bob Blizzard: As my hon. Friend knows, one of the ways in which the NHS is using its money in East Anglia involves requiring the primary care trusts to allocate a certain amount of money to the private sector to provide services free at the point of delivery for patients, which will provide patients with greater capacity and greater choice. In order that that process should work successfully in my part of the region, will my hon. Friend agree to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) to discuss the way forward in our part of the region?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive comments and agree to meet him and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth. I am aware that the number of people waiting for an in-patient appointment for more than six months is down to almost nil within his region, and the number of people waiting for an out-patient appointment for more than 13 weeks is also down to a very low level. Huge improvements have been made, but I am ready to listen to him about how we can improve things further.

John Gummer: Is the Minister aware that because of the underfunding of the PCTs in my constituency—we get 90 per cent. of average funding—he is closing one hospital, halving the number of beds in a second, closing beds in a third and has cut to ribbons the money available for mental health? Will he meet me and my PCTs, all of which believe that the situation is a result of underfunding rather than overspending? The health service is now in its worst state for 30 years.

Andy Burnham: I find it hard to take lessons from a member of the Cabinet which slashed NHS funding. As I said to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), Norfolk PCTs have experienced a 22.5 per cent. increase, and similar increases have occurred across the region. I am ready to listen to the right hon. Gentleman and hear about the pressure on the ground, where difficult decisions are being made in NHS trusts. However, he would be the first to say, "The NHS must live within its means and only spend what it has coming through the door." I am sure that he wants to support us in ensuring that his local NHS has a viable future.

SunSmart Campaign

Si�n James: If she will make a statement on the progress of the SunSmart campaign.

Caroline Flint: The SunSmart campaign, launched today, is the national skin cancer prevention campaign run on behalf of UK health Departments by Cancer Research UK. This year, it will focus on men, in whom the incidence of malignant melanoma has quadrupled in the past 30 years, and also on outdoor workers.

Si�n James: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has read my early-day motion on unstaffed, coin-operated sun-tanning salons, which I tabled last week. She will be aware that under-16s should not use sunbeds and that children are gaining access to unstaffed centres. Will she consider using the SunSmart campaign to raise awareness among children about the dangers of sunbed use?

Caroline Flint: That is an important issue. More than 100 MPs have signed the early-day motion. I will do more than use the campaign to raise awarenessofficials from across the Departments will meet other interested parties to discuss regulation in that area, and in particular coin-operated tanning booths and under-16s.

Hywel Williams: As part of the campaign, will the Minister ensure that awareness-raising information is targeted at men under 24 and over 64, who are particularly susceptible to not seeking medical advice when symptoms appear?

Caroline Flint: Part of the SunSmart campaign involves making sure that information goes to doctors and others, who can share it with other health professionals in their surgeries and make sure that leaflets are available. I am pleased that the campaign is focusing on men, because I am sorry to say gentlemen that you are not always very good at coming forward to look after your own healthtake advantage of the information and enjoy the sun, but keep it in proportion.

Ian Gibson: Would my hon. Friend agree that a little bit of sun is really good for you, because it helps to create vitamin D in the body, which prevents a lot of stomach cancer, bowel cancer, osteoporosis and so on? Does she accept the international information that is available, and does she think that Cancer Research may have gone a wee bit too far?

Caroline Flint: I recently met my hon. Friend and Mr. Oliver Gillie to discuss this issue, and we have had discussions with Cancer Research. I think that my hon. Friend will find that the information does not advise not going out into the sun, but being proportionate. I have asked the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition to consider some of the issues relating to adequate levels of vitamin D and prevention of other serious illnesses. My hon. Friend raises an important point.

NHS Deficit

David Amess: What estimate she has made of the year-end gross NHS deficit for the 2005-06 financial year.

Andy Burnham: As at month six, the NHS is forecasting a net deficit of around 620 million for the financial year 2005-06. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to publish provisional out-turn figures for 2005-06 in early June.

David Amess: I, too, welcome the Minister to his post and remember him as a well-respected colleague on the Health Committee, but that is where the pleasantries end. As he will know, the Royal College of Midwives, for instance, will be particularly concerned about this announcement. Is he aware that the decision to merge the three strategic health authorities in the east of England has concerned Southend hospital, which is not running a deficit and has actually saved money? The health professionals there are very worried that they will now be asked to bail out other health authorities that are running a deficit. Will the Minister confirm that that will not happen?

Andy Burnham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome. I remember our time on the Health Committee. He always had a pleasant word for me then, so I hope that that will continue in this job.
	I entirely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making on merging strategic health authorities. We made a commitment at the general election to take money out of NHS bureaucracy by slimming the number of NHS organisations and taking 250 million out of the system. I remind him that his party made a much deeper proposal of cuts up to600 million. One of the systems that we are taking forward is to ensure that those who do run a good ship do not get penalised as they did in the past and that organisations that are helping to recover the position can rightly expect that money to come back into their local health area. That is true for my constituency, too, and for many more represented on the Labour Benches of the House.

Kevin Barron: May I also welcome my hon. Friend to his new position on the Front Bench? Does he agree that it is vital not only to know what the out-turn deficit is for this particular year and how we are going to deal with that in this financial year and in years to come, but to understand why we have this overspending minority of trusts when we have a Government who have doubled expenditure on the NHS in the past seven years?

Andy Burnham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and for welcoming me to the Front Bench.
	I entirely agree that once we have got through the immediate difficulties, the important thing is to understand how these problems arose and to ensure that there is the strongest possible financial control at trust level. Boards must be given the information that they need in order to make decisions to ensure that the trust lives within its means, balances its books and remains in a strong position. I take on board my right hon. Friend's commentshe is right to make thembut I think that he would join me in saying that despite the problems, there is no trade-off against NHS standards. Within the current difficulties, the NHS continues to improve and is producing record waiting times for patients.

Richard Taylor: Last week, it was reported in the  British Medical Journal that adverse drug reactions are estimated to cost the NHS nearly 500 million a year. In view of the current NHS deficits, is it wise for the Department of Health to terminate the contract for supplying the  Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin to prescribers? I, too, welcome the new Minister. I do not think that he was on the Health Committee when we carried out our inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry. The Government response to that recognised the importance of the  Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin as one of the very few sources of independent advice to prescribers. Will he therefore reconsider that decision?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and that another of my comrades from the Health Committee is giving me the benefit of his advice at my first Health questions. I always have the highest regard for what he says, and I have listened carefully to the point that he has made. These issues have to be considered in the round against the background of NHS deficits, and there are continual pressures on the national health service. However, I have listened to the hon. Gentleman today, and I will continue to listen carefully to his views.

Eric Illsley: rose

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Gentleman.

Eric Illsley: My anonymity knows no bounds [ Laughter.] I have almost forgotten what I was going to say.
	My hon. Friend the Minister referred a moment ago to primary care trusts and health authorities running a good ship. That has been exactly the case in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham in South Yorkshire. Sheffield, however, despite brokerage and borrowings of 20 million, is still 16 million in deficit. Consequently, every health authority in South Yorkshire is now being asked to pay a 2.5 per cent. levy. For Barnsley, that means 6 million being taken out of the PCT's budget before the financial year even begins. Does my hon. Friend think that it is fair that the people who have been running a good ship are being penalised for their success?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes an extremely fair point. His PCT is similar to mine in many respects, being in a former mining area. I agree that the money to which he has referred is vital in an area such as Barnsley, just as such funding is needed in my constituency to improve public health and preventive care, so I understand entirely what he is saying. This is about putting in place a fair regime in the NHS, so that those organisations that bail[Hon. Members: Bail?] Those organisations that help those that are having problems should not suffer the consequence of not seeing the money come back into the system. My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. It is not right that organisations that manage their affairs well should compensate those that do not. The incentives in the system must reward those who run a good organisation.

Stephen Dorrell: Although we recognise that there has been a huge increase in funding to the national health service, which we welcome, does the Minister recognise that a depressingly familiar pattern is reasserting itself? This afternoon, we have seen the Minister with responsibility for mental health services standing at the Dispatch Box telling the House how important those priority services are, yet PCTs all round the country are cutting the growth budgets available for those services, regarding them as a soft touch for available resources. This is a familiar pattern. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that that is not allowed to continue?

Andy Burnham: It would be deeply irresponsible, when financial pressures have arisen, not to take steps to get the local health economy back into balance. However, I understand the serious point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about the position of mental health in the overall health economy, and about ensuring that it is not the specialty in which cuts are made and from which funds are taken first. I respect that point. Overall, however, it is up to the local health economies to make a proper judgment on their priorities for mental health services. But, as the right hon. Gentleman says, mental health services are not optional, and it is vital that they are adequately resourced.

Rosie Cooper: Does my hon. Friend agree that deficits do not necessarily reflect the excellent standard of health care in hospitals such as those at Southport and Ormskirk in my constituency? They are to be congratulated on being placed among the top 40 hospitals in the country, on having attained level 3 in the clinical negligence scheme for trusts, and on having the lowest MRSA rates in the country. My constituents should not be penalised for any errors made in strategic health authorities or in the health economy generally. The people should not pay; the executives should sort themselves out.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend's analysis is absolutely right. Many PCTs in the areas with the highest health needs and the greatest health inequalities have managed to break even and, in some cases, return a surplus. It would be wrong if those PCTs were unable to reap the rewards of that good financial management. The system that we are establishing will ensure that those organisations receive their funds back if they have helped, in-year, to recover the financial position of another health body.

Andrew Lansley: I know that the Minister is new to his post but he had better take care, because this time last year the Secretary of State was 80 per cent. out on the net deficit that the NHS was experiencing. Before he starts quoting a figure of 620 million, he ought to come to the House and tell us the actual unaudited figures at the year-end, rather than speculating on the basis of six-monthly figures. The consequences of that, and of paying off such deficits, are apparent across the country. Job losses were announced at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust on Friday, at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust yesterday, and at NHS Direct today, affecting directly the constituents of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and my constituents. The people affected, including nurses who face the prospect of redundancy, deserve better.
	The Minister talks about financial control, but will he tell us what is the Government's plan for financial control this year? Is it what the operating framework said in Januarythat every organisation must plan to recover their deficits from 2005-06 and balance their books this year? Or is it, as the Secretary of State told me in April, that every organisation with an overspend must improve this year, and that by the end of the financial year, monthly expenditure should be covered by monthly income? Those are two completely different financial regimes. Which is it?

Andy Burnham: As I said in my response to the main question, provisional out-turn figures for the year-end will be published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in early June, so the hon. Gentleman does not have long to wait. While I accept that difficult decisions are being made on the ground in his constituency and others, the purpose of those is to get the NHS into a stable position so that it is living within its means. There are not widespread redundancies across the pieceas I have mentioned, many parliamentary colleagues have a surplus in their health economy. The problem is focused on the 7 per cent. of NHS organisations that are bearing the vast majority of the deficit. On the hon. Gentleman's question about financial control, he knows that we are putting turnaround teams into those trusts specifically to help those organisations bring themselves back to financial balance by the end of this year. The answer could not be clearer: we are taking the difficult decisions necessary to get trusts back into balance.

General Practitioners

Joan Ruddock: How many general practitioners there were in the NHS in (a) 1997 and (b) 2005; and if she will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis: In 1997, 28,046 GPs were working in the national health service. In 2004, that figure increased by 4,692, to 32,738, which is an increase of 17 per cent. Those figures do not include retainers and registrars who represent a potential pool of about 3,000 GPs.

Joan Ruddock: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. That national picture is reflected in Lewisham, where we have but four vacancies, compared with 20 in 2002, and recruitment is going well thanks to Government support. Will he ensure, however, that the Government monitor the retention of those GPs, giving extra support to PCTs should it prove necessary? Will he also ensure that patients benefit from increased GP numbers by getting better access to out-of-hours services?

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The news from Lewisham is good. She is right, however, that it is essential that we maintain the successes made in GP recruitment, especially in disadvantaged and inner-city areas. That is why we have focused and targeted resources on supporting PCTs in those areas, especially with regard to recruitment and retention. We know that it has not always been easy to attract GPs into some of our most disadvantaged communities. I also agree that it is essential to ensure that improvements in primary care facilitate enhanced access to primary care services in every community.

Andrew Murrison: I welcome the Minister to his new duties. The National Audit Office tells us that up to 1 million people in England can no longer rely on out-of-hours services from a GP that they took for granted in 1997, despite the figures quoted by the Minister and a 22 per cent. overspend on out-of-hours services. What is he doing about PCTs such as Harrow, Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth, Eastleigh and Test Valley South, North Bradford, New Forest, Richmond and Twickenham and Sutton and Merton, which the NAO says are unable to guarantee patients' access to a GP at night and at weekends?

Ivan Lewis: The transition to the new GP contracts, in terms of out-of-hours services, has on the whole been smooth. That was actually confirmed by the recent National Audit Office report. As for the areas where there are difficulties, we need to examine them with the relevant primary care trusts, and ensure that out-of-hours services are available to patients in those communities where that is appropriate. However, the suggestion that the new contracts have led overall to a deterioration in out-of-hours services is not backed up by the very report to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Health (Patient/Public Involvement)

Philip Davies: If she will make a statement on the future of patient and public involvement in health.

Rosie Winterton: An expert panel was set up to consider the evidence collected in our recent review of patient and public involvement. We are currently considering its recommendations, and will make an announcement shortly.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister agree that it is crucial for the public to be involved in decisions relating to health care provision in communities? Does she accept that either abolishing or radically changing the forums only two years after their introduction will be yet another prime example of the Government's permanent revolution of our NHS, which generates a lot of huffing and puffing from Ministers but delivers very little to the public?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important to have good patient and public involvement in local decisions about health care, especially as some 80 per cent. of the budget is now devolved to local level. The reason we want to change the current system of patients forums is that many people in them felt that not enough resources were going to the front line. They felt that they would be able to do more if they had more control at local level, and if there was more accountability. For example, they wanted to work more closely with overview and scrutiny committees. We shall be presenting a great many ideas that I believe will lead to improvements in this important area.

Andrew Gwynne: I believe that public participation is key to ensuring that the NHS delivers the quality services that local people want. The advent of foundation trusts has provided more opportunities for the views of local people to be sought through those new structures, but what consideration has been given to strengthening public involvement in the direction and provision of primary care services at that very local level?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right: public participation is certainly one of the keys to ensuring that there is accountability at local level, and that local people are involved in decision making. That is one of the reasons why we wanted to consider the new structures. As there is a stronger role for primary care trusts in commissioning and as there are fewer PCTs, it is important to ensure that there are good local networks involving not only individuals but local organisations and local authorities in some of that local decision making.

John Baron: I suggest that the Government's record on this issue is very poor. They replaced the system of community health councils with a system that is not working. Patients forums have cost 12 million more to run, and staff turnover is very high. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health was introduced, only for the Government then to announce its abolition. The total cost of that was 100 million. Last year the Government scrapped their plans for reform, and now there is speculation that patients forums themselves will be abolished.
	Given that confusion, will the Minister assure the House that the expertise built up by forum volunteers will not be lost in the latest round of Government changes, and will she do her best to get a grip on the shambles?

Rosie Winterton: The difficulty that we experienced with the CHCs was that they offered services in different ways. Some would offer complaints services, for instance, while others would not. That is why we set up a whole new structure, including the patient advice and liaison service in local trusts, the Independent Complaints Advocacy Services to deal with complaints, and patients forums to consider patient and public involvement at local level.
	We will be looking further into how to improve the current system, as people working in patient forums have identified some difficulties, particularly the problem of ensuring that resources are spent at local level. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is exactly why we set up the expert panelto ensure that we improve in future by building on the expertise that already exists in the patient forums.

Mental Health Services

Michael Jack: What steps her Department is taking to increase access to child mental health services.

Ivan Lewis: The Department's recovery and support unit is working closely with strategic health authorities to ensure that comprehensive child and adolescent mental health services, as defined in the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services, are available to all who need them.

Michael Jack: In welcoming the Minister to his new post, may I remind him that early in 2004, the then Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), told me that an 80-week waiting list for a child to access psychological services was unacceptable? The Cumbria and Lancashire strategic health authority confirmed in March that the waiting time was now 93 weeks, which many would regard as unbearable. I have been told that action has been taken to address that deficit, so will the Minister confirm that he will do everything possible to speed up all the necessary measures to reduce that totally unacceptable waiting period?

Ivan Lewis: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that was and is unacceptable and I congratulate him on highlighting those issues. Appropriate action has been taken to deal with the problem, as he has acknowledged. For example, in his locality a number of new posts and services have been created: a clinical child psychologist, a child and adolescent mental health services assistant psychologist, part-time administrative support, an attention deficit disorder nurse, a primary care liaison specialist post and a specialist health worker located in the youth offending team. All that investment should significantly improve the position. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep me informed of developments; we certainly expect to see significant progress in the months ahead.

Primary Care Trusts and Ambulance Trusts

Andy Burnham: With permission, Mr. Speaker, and in the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I should like to make a statement on primary care trusts and NHS ambulance trusts. Detailed information for each area has, for the convenience of hon. Members, been placed on the Board since 1 pm.
	In my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's written statement of 18 October 2005, she explained that strategic health authorities had been invited to submit proposals to the Department of Health on how to streamline SHAs and strengthen primary care trusts. Four clear criteria underpinned that exercise: the need to improve health and reduce inequalities; to strengthen the PCTs' commissioning function; to improve co-ordination with social services through greater coterminosity between PCT and local authority boundaries; and to deliver at least a 15 per cent. reduction in management and administrative costs.
	In the intervening period, SHAs have consulted local people, staff and clinicians, partners in local government and a range of other local stakeholders on the proposals for SHAs, PCTs and ambulance trusts. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have offered their views and I am very grateful to them. After local consultations, SHAs submitted their reports and recommendations to the Department. An external panel, established to advise Ministers on the proposals, has since met to consider in detail each proposal for PCTs and SHAs. After receiving its advice, we announced on 12 April that the numbers of SHAs would reduce from 28 to 10.
	Ministers have now considered the recommendations and the panel's advice on PCTs. I can now inform the House that the number of PCTs will fall from 303 to 152, and that the new organisations will be established on 1 October 2006. The population covered by each PCT will rise from an average of around 165,000 at present to an average of just below 330,000. About70 per cent. of the new PCTs will be coterminous with the boundaries of local authorities with social services responsibilities, which compares with about 44 per cent. of PCTs that are currently coterminous with their local authorities.
	In some areas, concerns have been expressed that larger PCTs could lose a locality focus and divert resources away from deprived areas or that smaller PCTs could lack commissioning power. We acknowledge those concerns and have sought to strike a careful balance between those conflicting demands. In response, we propose that four general conditions be applied: first, that all PCTs retain and build on partnership arrangements; secondly, that a strong locality focus must be retained and, where necessary, that local structures should be put in place; thirdly, that all PCTs must deliver their share of the 15 per cent. management cost saving, strengthen commissioning and ensure robust management of financial balance and risk; and fourthly, that the new PCTs and SHAs should consider how any further conditions relating to issues that arose during the consultation could be applied.
	In some areas, the new proposals differ from those suggested by the SHA and the external panel. Having taken into account all the evidence and sought local consensus wherever possible, we have judged that in those circumstances, the alternatives could better satisfy the Commissioning a Patient-led NHS criteria and have the best possible chance of success.
	On PCTs as providers of services, let me restate the Secretary of State's clear commitment to the House on 25 October 2005. She said that
	district nurses, health visitors and other staff
	delivering clinical services
	will continue to be employed by the PCT unless and until it decides otherwise.[ Official Report, 25 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 152.]
	Our aim in making these changes is to benefit both patients and taxpayers. Fewer, more strategic PCTs will be better placed to ensure effective commissioning of services for patients, and to support the development of practice-based commissioning among GPs and other primary care staff. Patients will receive the right care and treatment in the right place, and at the right time. The taxpayer will see the release of 250 million worth of savings annually, through the merging of back-office functions and a reduction in administrative costs, for reinvestment in front-line services from 2008-09. That could pay, for example, for roughly 50,000 heart operations or major improvements in services for people with long-term conditions, especially older people. The changes will also build stronger partnerships between the NHS and local government.
	The reconfiguration of PCTs is the first stage in strengthening the commissioning function. The next stage is a development programme for all PCTs, which will ensure that they are strong, confident organisations fit for driving forward the NHS reforms that we are implementing.
	On ambulance trust reorganisation, in June 2005 the Government accepted the recommendations set out by Peter Bradley, our national ambulance adviser, in the review entitled Taking Healthcare to the Patient: Transforming NHS Ambulance Services, which set out a vision for ambulance services. In future, they will provide more care in the home and more treatment at the scene, give better advice to patients over the telephone and ensure faster response times to save more lives. The review made it clear that in order to ensure that ambulance trusts have the right strategic capacity, infrastructure and staff to deliver these improvements in patient care, there should in future be fewer, larger ambulance trusts. These changes will enable standards within the new trusts to be levelled up to those of the best.
	In her written statement of 14 December 2005, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out our intention to consult and to ensure that the benefits outlined in the ambulance review can be fully realised. Following this consultation, the Secretary of State has now decided that from 1 July 2006, most of the existing 29 NHS ambulance trusts will merge into 12, with separate management arrangements for the Isle of Wight. For now, Staffordshire ambulance service will remain a separate trust, working in partnership with the new West Midlands ambulance service, but will eventually merge at a later date.
	Feedback from most areas was supportive of our proposals. However, we have decided to address the public's concern that local responsiveness and flexibility could be lost through having larger trusts by requiring ambulance trusts to ensure that their services are meeting the needs of all localities and populations within their boundaries. Those changes should mean more investment in front-line services as trusts identify savings in back-room functions; improved patient care through providing an opportunity to raise the standard of the service provided by all trusts to the level of the best; better emergency planning, with greater capacity and the capability to respond to major incidents of all kinds; more integrated services; and better career opportunities for staff.
	Changes of this kind are inevitably difficult. We have not sought to impose a single blueprint on the NHS; instead, we have listened carefully to representations from all Members and from local communities and organisations. Wherever possible, we have responded positively to them. We have one aim above all: to deliver better health care to patients. I commend this statement to the House.

Stephen O'Brien: I thank the Minister for providing me with a copy of his statement in advance, and for putting local information on the Board for the use of hon. Members.
	Since Labour came to office, there have been seven reorganisations of the NHS already, and today's pair are the eighth and ninth. Under the cloak of words such as modernisation or reform, this is change for change's sake. Has the Minister any idea of the effect that the reorganisation has on staff morale, and on the ability to retain the good? It means that underperformers inevitably will be recycled into similar jobs in the new organisations. It causes instability among clinical staffdoctors, nurses and allied professionsand inflicts uncertainty and inefficiency in the NHS supply chain. Above all, is he aware that it leaves patients wondering where they feature in it all?
	The Government have form, however. They never allow anything to settle and bed downmuch to the consternation of the hard-working people trying to deliver the front-line patient services. In Government, as in all walks of life, the addiction to constant structural change is a well known technique deployed by those who did not get it right the first timeor the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth times. Imposing another restructuring and a further reorganisation is a great wheeze to put through changes in a bid to avoid accountability and to keep running ahead of mistakes.
	The mounting job losses in the NHS show that the Government are no longer lulling the public, whose trust in the Government, not least in respect of the NHS, has plummeted. Let us look at why the Government have felt impelled to announce yet more changes to the NHS

Ivan Lewis: It says here.

Stephen O'Brien: Indeed, it does say it here, because that is what I wrote.
	First, let us look at ambulance trusts. Peter Bradley's review concluded that there should be fewer of them, but that they should be larger, yet no evidence for that major change was contained in the report, or made available since. Ministers then decided to reduce the number of strategic health authorities to align with their obsession with regions, notwithstanding the electorate's rejection of the idea in the north-east. With sleight of hand, Ministers have used the reorganisation as an excuse to reduce the number of trusts to 12, and then they have ducked the flak by suggesting that that was Peter Bradley's idea and recommendation all along. Will the Minister therefore undertake to place in the Library of the House any evidence that relates specifically to claims that creating large trusts will lead to improvements in patient care?
	How does the reorganisation achieve closer integration of all the emergency services? Will the Minister explain how a north-west regional ambulance service will integrate better with the newly merged Merseyside and Cheshire police forcea merger that will be carried out in the teeth of maximum hostility and objection? How will it integrate better with contingency planning in Cheshire, or with the Cheshire fire service's move to sub-regional control rooms?
	Will the Minister comment on proposals to reduce control room numbers by co-aligning them with the police and fire services? The House should bear it in mind that in Warwickshire, for example, the fire service responds to some 3,000 emergency calls a year, whereas the ambulance services respond to some 100,000.
	Who is co-ordinating the reorganisation across Government? Co-ordinated is the last thing that it isperhaps the Deputy Prime Minister has been devoting his time to this matter recently. It is shambolic, inconsistent centralising by an arrogant Government who claim to listen but who choose not to hear the views of those who work on the front line and who know best.
	The official consultation on ambulance trusts lasted from the middle of September last year to near the end of March this year, yet the NHS appointments commission sent out letters on 30 Januaryin the middle of the consultation periodasking for nominations for men and women to chair the new NHS ambulance trusts. The question ariseswas not the decision therefore a foregone conclusion?
	I have had a letter from Roger Moore, the chief executive of the appointments commission, in which he stated that the recruitment began
	at the request of the Department of Health.
	I am pleased that concerted work by MPs across Staffordshire and by the shadow health team, supported by huge amounts of work by the people of the county, has caused Ministers to backtrack on axing Staffordshire ambulance service for up to two years. That 24-month period was set out in the handout on the Board in the Members' Lobby, but not in the statement. That is a classic fudge, as it puts Staffordshire ambulance trust in the departure lounge. However, will the Minister give the House an assurance that unless the west midlands service is brought up to the standard of Staffordshire there will be no hint of a merger, whether in two years or beyond?
	Given today's statement, any right-thinking person is entitled to regard the Government's consultation as a sham. Constant change will undermine what has already been achieved; for example, by turning round the East Anglian ambulance trust. The Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire service is about to complete the process of splitting; now they will have to go through the upheaval of being merged again.
	We are not against the restructuring of PCTs per se[Hon. Members: Ah.] The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, SouthMr. Lewis suggests that the whole statement was about PCTs; clearly he was not listening, as much of it dealt with ambulance trusts. On PCTs, as distinct from ambulance trusts, we are not opposed to restructuring, but we have always said that future functions need to be defined before such restructuring takes place.
	In 2002, the Department of Health abolished the 11 regional offices of the former NHS executive and about 100 health authorities. Today, the Government are bringing back that map. Has the Minister estimated the cost of that U-turn, which takes us back to the position four years ago? He may talk of the Secretary of State's clear commitment in October 2005 about the functions of PCTs, yet three months before that the DOH was equally clear, in Commissioning a patient-led NHS, when it called for PCTs to become
	patient-led and commissioning-led organisations with their role in provision reduced to a minimum
	by 2008. The Secretary of State backtracked on that commitment, without reassessing whether the proposed structures would be fit for purpose. Now, no one is clear.
	As the Health Committee said in January, when it attacked the Government's indecision,
	we are appalled at the continuing lack of clarity about whether or not PCTs will eventually divest themselves of provider functions.
	The Department of Health's NHS operating framework for 2006-07, published on 26 January, offered little further clarity, stating:
	Where PCTs do continue to provide services, they will need to put in place clear governance procedures that ensure that there is no undue influence from the provider side on commissioning decisions.
	Will the Minister detail how 15 per cent. management cost savings can be made when the Government are calling for each PCT to have two sets of managersone for commissioning and one for direct services?
	The problem for the Minister is that all this restructuring has gone on without putting in place the necessary precondition for its having a realistic chance of success: defining the future functions of PCTs. Will the Minister tell us how many PCTs are predicted to be direct providers of services in two years' time? New organisations can hardly be expected to deliver unless and until they have clarity of purpose.
	In his statement the Minister said that in some cases the new proposals differ from those suggested by the strategic health authorities and the external panel. Will he tell the House how many PCTs the expert panel proposed should be created overall; and will he publish in full the panel's advice so that we can see to what extent the Government arrived at different decisions and the implications of the variations?
	The Government seem only now to be waking up to the cost of the reconfiguration and the redundancies that go with it. Can the Minister confirm that the estimated cost of this latest round of NHS reconfiguration, which will merely take us back to where we were four years ago, will be 320 million? Will he also confirm that at 250 millionthe figure he gave in his statementthe savings will be less than the cost? Is he confident even of that amount, or was the Health Committee right when it said that savings of between 60 million and 135 million were nearer the mark? Are those estimates gross or net, given the cost of the redundancies that will be inevitable to deliver on that Government promise?
	What is the time scale? The House is entitled to have that crucial information in a year when the Government's financial control of, and credibility with, the NHS is shot to pieces and the NHS is in confusion and plunged into at least 10 months of uncertainty and chaos at PCT level. This is no way to run an NHS.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Opposition spokesman took longer than the Minister. I do not want to see that practice continued.

Andy Burnham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and in that long speech, I will seek to pick out the points of substance that there were.
	There is no confusion. Our aim overall is to improve patient care. That is what we are in business to do, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman without fear of contradiction that patient care is improving. Patients are not waiting for more than six months for in-patient treatment. On the whole, they wait a maximum of 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment. There is clear evidence of progress. That is what guides our changes; it is what guides these changes, so I can assure him that there is no confusion on our part at least.
	The hon. Gentleman says that this is change for change's sake. I point out to him that the NHS changes; it is different from what it was in 2000. We have an ambitious programme of reform to drive through in the NHS. We want to ensure that people can choose where they are treated and that the wait for that treatment is short, once the full reform programme is introduced. That will require strong commissioning throughout the NHS. It will require people cleverly commissioning services and using their organisational strength. That is why we are making these changes. He will know that some changes have begun, and some of the changes that we have formalised today have already begun to take shape.
	On ambulance trusts, the hon. Gentleman claims that we have an obsession with the regionsfar from it. He asks what the connection is with other emergency services. Surely, it makes sense to ensure that, at regional level, there is the contingency capacity to deal with major events and that capacity is planned regionally. I hope that he agrees that there is some logic in doing that. He claims that there is no support, but Peter Bradley's proposals commanded strong support from within the ambulance service, particularly because they clearly focused on the professional development of those who work in the service, thus giving them the ability to shape ambulance services in future.
	The hon. Gentleman claims that we have not listened. Clearly, if he looks at the proposals for PCTs that we are publishing today, he will see that precisely the opposite is the case. We have indeed listened to hon. Membersnot just Labour Members, but Opposition Members, tooand we have taken on board those concerns. He asks where the proposals differ and whether we will put the evidence in the Library. I would be happy to do that, but the reason why we have taken those decisions and listened to those representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House is that we want a consensus of support for the new organisation, because it is our judgment that the organisation will have the best chance of success if it is underpinned by strong community support. That is exactly why we have done that.
	The hon. Gentleman asks me whether we will detail where the cost savings can be made. There will be one-off costs in relation to the exercise, but the savings will come year on year. As for the timetable, we expect that the savings from the exercisesome 250 million a yearwill be realised by 2008. That, of course, will be a recurrent saving for front-line services.
	There is a logic and coherence to our proposals, and the hon. Gentleman talks of incoherence and confusion among Government Members. I put it to him that the Conservative party's policy at the last general election was to take about 650 million from so-called NHS bureaucracy, as defined by the James review; coupled with that was the patient's passport, which would have taken money from the health service. What kind of organisational chaos would the combination of those policies have created?

Steve Webb: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
	The Government abolished health authorities four years ago and created primary care groups and primary care trusts, and they are now merging them back together to create health authorities. Were the Government right to abolish health authorities, and are they right to recreate them? Is that what the Minister is telling the House? Or did they make a mistake four years ago, and will he admit that to the House?
	Can the Minister provide evidence of where the250 million cost saving will come from, given that the Select Committee on Health was very sceptical that savings on that scale could be achieved? He did not answer the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman's question about the number of redundancies that are implied by a 250 million annual saving. How many people will lose their jobs?
	On responding to local consultation, I thank the Minister for listening to some very effective lobbying from the west of England, which has resulted in keeping PCTs coterminous with social service authorities. I welcome that fact, because I was sceptical that the Government would listen on that point. I assume that he already knows that I was pressing for that. I also welcome the fact that, following recent political trends, the south-west of England has turned from blue to orange.
	On coterminosity, the Minister said in his statement that about 70 per cent. of PCTs will be coterminous. Is there a limit to that, or will he go further? What is the restriction on having 100 per cent. coterminosity and having real integration of health and social services? How far will the Government go?
	What are the promises of PCTs that have been abolished worth? Many of my colleagues are worried that, although they have been promised things by existing PCTs about new community services, the successor bodies may well say that they are not bound by the promises of the predecessor bodies. Can the Minister give us an assurance that, when an existing PCT has made a promise, the successor bodies will honour that promise?
	Finally, on the ambulance trust mergers, what confidence can people living in rural areas have that the very large ambulance trusts will not inevitably concentrate on urban centres? Whereas small trusts could respond to local circumstances, larger ones may neglect rural areas to hit their performance targets.

Andy Burnham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive response. In the course of his remarks, he made the point that we have listened. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) would have done well to take that point on board. We are not recreating health authorities; the building blocks are the same. The exercise has shown a range of interest in and commitment to primary care trusts around the country. People seem to be attached to them. The changes are not happening everywhere. In my area, in Greater Manchester, the building blocks will largely remain the sameas they will in London. Experience has shown that there is a PCT size that is more effective in commissioning good quality patient care. We are making the changes in that respect and ensuring that the NHS is able to use its strength at local level to drive up quality for patients.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) mentioned coterminosity. I am in full agreement with him on that point. I have long believed that there needs to be much closer working between the national health service and social services at a local level. I fully support such moves, including even pooled budgetsthat kind of approach. I hope that the proposals will pave the way for much greater joint working. There are examples around the country where that working is close. The greater level of coterminosity allows those partnerships to be built. The level is around the mid-70 per cent. mark. We have to strike a balance between representations from local Members and not creating bodies that are too big to do the job. We have sought to manage those tensions. We have produced a significant increase in the number of PCTs that are coterminous with their social services departments. That will be a positive step forward for patients and particularly for older people in those regions.
	There will, of course, be redundancies as a result of the exercise, but we made it clear at the election that we would be clear about reducing unnecessary NHS bureaucracy. There should be savings made in merging back-room functions, where that can be done, but at the same time we do not want to diminish the power of PCTs to be effective commissioners for their communities. Today's proposals strike that balance.

Alan Milburn: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, which will be widely welcomed. It is good news in my constituency of Darlington, in particular. I also thank Ministers for listening to the views of the many local people who campaigned in large numbers to retain Darlington's primary care trust. Does he agree that his statement is a sure sign that, in the future, we will need to strengthen still further the working arrangements between not just health and social services, but housing services, so that more peopleparticularly old peopleget access to the locally delivered, locally commissioned seamless services that they surely deserve?

Andy Burnham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He has done more than anybody in the House to bring about the improving NHS that we have. The PCT structure on the ground is largely due to the changes that he made as Secretary of State for Health. I am grateful for his comments about listening. We have indeed listened. I know that strong representations were made by him and others in the north-east region. As I said to the hon. Member for Eddisbury a moment ago, it was right that we listened to those representations because we want the organisations to command solid local support. I am pleased that we have achieved some success in my right hon. Friend's area.
	My right hon. Friend made a point about housing. When we consider coterminosity, we all think about social services, but he is absolutely right to say that we can think more widely about links with councils and consider the provision of adequate housing and leisure and cultural services to local populations so that we can really begin to understand how to make people more active. All those possibilities are opened up by greater coterminosity and I am grateful for the welcome given by my right hon. Friend.

Charles Walker: When we in Hertfordshire were faced with the prospect of one PCT, we campaigned for two, so we are delighted that we have got two. The east and north Hertfordshire PCT will serve my constituency. What safeguards will be in place to ensure that that new PCT serves the less-well-off parts of my constituency, such as Waltham Cross and Cheshunt, and does not focus too much of its time onhow can I put this delicately?the posh parts in the north of Hertfordshire?

Andy Burnham: That is proof that we listened to the hon. Gentleman's representations. It is obviously for the champion of the underprivileged on the Conservative Benches to ensure that his local PCT pays adequate regard to the parts of his constituency in which the health needs are greatest, although, of course, that is something that local responsiveness should pick up.

Jim Dobbin: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. He will be aware that the strategic health authority recommended that the new merged primary care trust that will serve my community and Rochdale be called Rochdale PCT. I welcome the Minister's decision to call it Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale PCT because I think that that is the right order for the name, which is important to my local community. Will he ensure that membership of the new board is representative of the two constituencies and two primary care trusts and, especially, that the resources are evenly spread across both areas?

Andy Burnham: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am pleased that my primary care trust will still be called the Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT because I would be in great trouble indeed if it was called something else. I understand that such local connections and ties are extremely important and am pleased that Heywood has been recognised in the name of my hon. Friend's PCT. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), it is crucial that the new organisations serve all parts of the areas that they cover and, especially, that they pick out the health needs in those areas and bear down on the health inequalities that are important to him, me and Greater Manchester in particular.

Nicholas Winterton: I warmly thank the Minister, his predecessor and the Department of Health for listening to the overwhelming view of the people of Cheshire and establishing not one but two PCTs to ensure that the different cultures of east and west Cheshire are properly reflected in the provision.

Owen Paterson: Posh.

Gerald Howarth: And Becks.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friends and am sure that the Minister got the gist of what I was saying.
	It is important that the interests of both sides of Cheshire are properly catered for in the provision of health services. Does the Minister accept that there is concern that the target arrival times are not being met by the existing ambulance service? Will he give an assurance that those target times will be met under the merged ambulance service in the north-west?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's warm welcome for the proposal. I hope that we will not see the emergence of an east-west Cheshire split and an explanation of the different cultures between the two. I am grateful for his recognition that we have listened and created a structure with which he is comfortable. Under the new North West ambulance service, which will serve my constituency, too, it will obviously be crucial that performance is improved across the piece. When improvements need to be made to services, it is important that the body takes particular care to bear down on the problems and ensures that all residents of the north-west can look forward to and enjoy the same standards of service. I am sure that the new service will be focused on those matters.

Kevin Barron: I welcome the statement and am pleased that the Government have taken notice of local consultation. What we have in front of us is not the top-down method that the exercise was accused of pursuing late last year.
	In relation to moving PCTs to be coterminous with local authority social services, what plans does the Minister have to ensure that there will be joint working where the changes took place in this round? It is not always easy to achieve that between local authorities and local health communities, as many of us have experienced. What plans does he have across government to ensure that local social services, health and, probably, housing work well together from day one, as opposed to waiting for that to evolve at a local level over the years?

Andy Burnham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and am grateful to him for making an important point. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that the NHS has perhaps not run the best consultation exercises and has not been as good at listening to local communities as it should be for the fine organisation that it is. The exercise, for all its difficultiesI recognise that there have been difficulties along the wayhas produced a good outcome. The NHS has shown that it can listen to local opinion and come up with structures that respond to concerns expressed on the ground.
	My right hon. Friend is right. There is a lot of talk about the need to have joint working between health and social services, but often that talk runs ahead of the reality. His predecessor as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, David Hinchliffe, the former hon. Member for Wakefield, was passionate about that. He often made that point when I served under him on the Select Committee. I, too, am convinced that we will see real improvements when we have much greater integration of health and social services in my right hon. Friend's constituency and mine.

Patrick Cormack: I thank the Minister for recognising the special qualities of the Staffordshire ambulance service. Will he give me the assurance, which he was not able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), that there will be no question of merger unless the neighbouring merged ambulance service has reached at least the standard of Staffordshire in two years' time?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. He can see from the proposals that we have recognised the strong concerns expressed by him and some of my hon. Friends. The public in Staffordshire clearly feel a strong attachment to their ambulance service, and rightly so. We have stated clearly that merger is expected within a period of time. I am not going to lay a time frame on that today, but he makes the legitimate point that we would not want Staffordshire ambulance service's standards to be eroded in any way.

Janet Dean: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend's statement. The people of Staffordshire will be pleased that Ministers have listened and that there has been a true consultation. Up to two years will certainly allow time for the West Midlands ambulance service and the Staffordshire ambulance service to be aligned and for protocols to be developed, which I hope will maintain the excellent service. However, if a little more time is needed, I hope that Ministers will consider extending it. Ministers have truly listened, so thank you.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for those commentsmore like it would be much appreciatedand for my hon. Friend's measured words. I am happy to give her the assurance that although we expect merger to be right in due course, I hear what she says. I will relay her words to Lord Warner, who has done a great deal of work to bring about the proposals.
	Not long ago I was a customer of Staffordshire ambulance service following a crash on the M6. The standard of care was exceptional and the standard of support provided by the paramedics on site was fantastic. I have good personal reason to endorse fully what my hon. Friend says.

David Curry: North Yorkshire PCT will be the third largest in the country with a population at 765,000, behind only Hampshire and Surrey, yet it covers a huge county of scattered communities. Will the Minister ensure that it is gospel with the new PCT that it should do everything it can to reinforce its working relationships at the local level? If it does not, my constituents will conclude that the Government's only intention is to drain services to a larger regional level, as they have done with the police, with the loss of accountability and of sheer local personality that make public services so valued.

Andy Burnham: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. May I refer him to my statement, in which I gave a clear commitment to ensure that structures are in place in the new organisations so that local concerns can be aired or voiced? I therefore agree with him on that point. The new PCT is one of the larger PCTs that have been created today, with the benefit that it has a significant ability to drive up standards for residents. The important thing is to get the balance right, and we believe that, bearing in mind the points that he has made, we have done so.

Tom Levitt: I accept the logic of coterminosity between social and health services, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on acknowledging that in some circumstances common sense dictates a different solutionhence the retention of Tameside and Glossop PCT, which has the support of 99 per cent. of respondents to the consultation. Does he agree that such modifications of coterminosity will test the principle of local area agreementsit is none the worse for thatand that areas such as Glossop should not be disadvantaged by the emphasis on local area agreements and local commissioning?

Andy Burnham: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's efforts to ensure that the voice of people in his constituency, particularly in Glossop, is heard? He is quite right that there are occasional exceptions for people with health ties that do not fit the local government structure. Knowing the area well, I can say that Glossop is one such location. Traditionally, people have travelled north-west into Manchester for hospital care, but technically they are not within the region's local government boundaries. We have listened to my hon. Friend's concerns, and we have made an exception, as we recognise that people in the area lean towards the north-west for health care. However, he is right that that exception does not challenge the other structures that have been put in place to improve services on the ground.

Vincent Cable: In addition to their local commissioning and partnership functions, how many national targets will the PCTs still have to monitor and report on? In the new, reorganised NHS, approximately how many staff will be deployed in that role?

Andy Burnham: I would make a staunch defence of targets. By providing clarity from the centre, we have been able to deliver improvements to the NHS in recent years, so I make no apology for them. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have reduced the number of targets and have set fewer priorities, as we need to focus on our true priorities. It is the new PCTs' job to ensure delivery of standards. Throughout the process, I am pleased that there has been continued improvement in NHS patient care, and I fully expect the new organisational structure to continue to drive change for patients' benefit.

Laura Moffatt: I firmly believe that the development of primary care trusts has developed a system for GPs that promotes innovation and exciting programmes to improve people's health in our constituencies, and I congratulate Crawley PCT on its work. How can we ensure that GPs who are determined to drive up standards in a larger PCT can do so and can continue to work with local authorities so that everyone benefits from the new PCT?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. General practitioners in her area are at the forefront of leading practice to develop good services at community level. It is a priority for everyone, wherever possible, to deliver services away from the hospital setting and closer to the patient's home. I fully endorse that as the way forward, and I applaud the work on the ground in her area. Within the new structure, we are introducing practice-based commissioning. That change will put power in the hands of local GPs to drive improvements in their area, so it should give more power to their elbow than they have at present. That is what I would like to see as a result of these changes.

Michael Fallon: Given that half the beds at Sevenoaks hospital that were temporarily closed in February for financial reasons have now shamefully been removed altogether, what reassurance can the Minister give me that good local hospitals will be any safer inside larger PCTs?

Andy Burnham: The point of the changes is to ensure that PCTs can take a balanced view across a broad area to ensure that patient services are most effectively provided. He would be the first to complain if local priorities were overridden from the centre by targets or central diktat. It is right that at local level people should be able to create the kind of health service they want. Through foundation trusts we want to give local people much greater ownership, control and say over how their hospitals provide services. Ultimately, that is the way in which local people and local communities will have their say over the configuration of hospital services.

Paul Truswell: Great concern has been expressed in Leeds about the continued development of the strong local focus of the five PCTs. Will my hon. Friend ensure that any savings realised as part of the reconfiguration in Leeds are re-invested in Leeds to develop that local focus still further?

Andy Burnham: As my hon. Friend knows, the changes will lead to a Leeds PCT that could provide a powerful voice for local communities across the Leeds area. I am happy to confirm that the savings that will be made as a result of the changes will be directly released for patient care. That is the very reason we are making the changes. We must achieve a balance so that an organisational structure is the right size and is not unnecessarily duplicating back-office functions. Where savings are released, they will be ploughed back into patient care at the front line.

Gerald Howarth: Blackwater Valley and Hart PCT and North Hampshire PCT have just gone through a painful reorganisation. They already cover a population of 385,00050,000 higher than the average PCT that the Minister is creating. Now he wants to foist on Hampshire yet another period of turbulence. Can he explain in practical terms how he will deliver the local focus of which he speaks? In particular, how will he ensure that the PCT covering 800,000 people in Hampshire specifically looks after the interests of my constituents, who are served by a hospital in Surrey, next door? That is the question to which they will need the answer tonight, please.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Competing demands must be balanced in reaching the right judgment. Those demands are local focus, responsiveness to local need, a commissioner who has the weight and the power to drive a good bargain and get good commissioning for local people, and together with all those things, coterminosity with social service providers so that we can get joined services at local level. Some of those pressures are pulling in opposite directions and it is difficult to get them into balance. That is why we have no blueprint specifying that a PCT must be a particular size and shape in a particular locality. We have sought to do the best we can to manage the competing priorities. I am pleased to say that in the hon. Gentleman's area there was strong support for a Hampshire PCT coterminous with the local authority boundaries.

Roger Berry: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I join the growing number of hon. Members in all parts of the House thanking him for its content in relation to the reconfiguration of primary care trusts. I specifically thank him for rejecting the proposal from the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority to remove existing coterminosity and create even less, and for listening to the opinion of every local council, every local trust, their staff, Members of Parliament, voluntary community organisations, GPs and just about everybody who thought that that proposal was unwise. I thank the Government for making a sound decision.

Andy Burnham: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. People have long complained about a democratic deficit within the NHS, and I hope that some of the proposals that we have announced today and campaigns run on the ground by elected representatives throughout the country will show that the NHS can respond to local concerns and put in place a structure in local communities in which people feel confident and with which people identify.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister has talked about the need for strong community support and coterminosity. Perhaps he will explain which organising genius at the centre of Government has produced a PCT for Surrey, which is welcome, but managed to remove the police, fire and ambulance services from boundaries within Surrey in the same period.

Andy Burnham: This is my second week in the job, and I have just discovered that I am not responsible for police, fire or other emergency services. However, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises that our NHS structure is the right way to go in Surrey.

Charlotte Atkins: My hon. Friend has given the House absolutely brilliant news on Staffordshire ambulance service, and I am grateful to him and the rest of the ministerial team for listening to the people of Staffordshire. Will he confirm that Staffordshire ambulance service will remain operationally independent and that it will have its own trust board and its own chief officer, so that it can continue to run its system, which is completely different from those used by other ambulance services in the country? Will he also confirm that no merger will take place unless Staffordshire ambulance service agrees to it and unless the west midlands service comes up to the standard of the Staffordshire service, which delivers the fastest response times in the country?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for another bouquet from the Back Benches, but, before I am accused of being a fraud for accepting them, I must point out that many people in my Department have been working on the proposals. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) has been in close discussions with people in the DepartmentI am, perhaps, the only person who has not been in detailed discussions with her, so it is not right for me to accept all the congratulations, which I shall relay to the rest of the Department. She knows health issues in detailI have worked with her on other mattersand I know how passionately she believes in the health service in her area. She has run a good campaign and has expressed her concerns extremely well. We have said that a merger should be the eventual goal, and I am happy to give her the assurances that she seeks on the operating structures of the two services. My noble Friend Lord Warner will judge those issues, but it makes sense to have agreement in the region when any further change is made to the structure.

Michael Jack: The consultation document on the creation of the North West ambulance service did not contain a business case with real numbers to justify the assertion that resources will be available for the service improvements that the Minister mentioned in his statement. When I asked the excellent Lancashire ambulance service for details on that point, it could not help either. The Minister must have seen a business case to convince him that his decision is right. Will he assure the House that the details will be placed in the Library, so we can all understand where the resources will come from and be sure that good services, such as Lancashire ambulance service, will not be drained of resources to prop up those that are not so good?

Andy Burnham: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will put into the public domain any information that we can to show the basis on which those decisions were taken, but he knows that the structure proposed by Peter Bradley commanded strong support within the ambulance service. People want to be part of a service that can invest its resources in front-line services and in improving the professional development of its staff. A unified ambulance service in the north-west will lead to an improved level of service for his constituents and for mine. I hope that we can share that information, but, as I have said, it is vital that residents across the north-west can look forward to service improvements as a result of the changes. However, the right hon. Gentleman must accept that savings can be made by merging the back-office functions of existing ambulance services.

Tony Wright: May I give two cheers for my hon. Friend's announcement about Staffordshire ambulance service? It is the best performing ambulance service in the country, and it would have been inexplicable to have merged it. The Government deserve great credit for not forcing such a merger. Will my hon. Friend get a third cheer by giving the assurance for which he has been asked on several occasionsthat no merger in future, whether in 2008 or at any other time, will take place until the standard of the service with which it is intended to merge has reached the standards, including the response time standards, of the Staffordshire service? That is the crucial guarantee that my hon. Friend has to give.

Andy Burnham: I thank my hon. Friend for his two cheers. Again, I will pass them on to others who have worked on this. The crucial test in judging changes to an ambulance service is, first, that the service is viable and, secondly, that it is providing a safe service to all the residents in the area. Those are the guiding principles on which any further changes will be made. As I said to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), any further change would be about ensuring that service standards could be further improved. We recognise the improvements in service standards that Staffordshire has reached; that is why we are happy to make the decisions that we announced. I hear what my hon. Friend has said. In going forward with any further change, we must be clear that it is about improving service standards to all the residents of Staffordshire and the west midlands.

Stephen Dorrell: Can the Minister confirm that the effect of his announcement is that, in future, commissioning in the health service will be the responsibility of roughly the same number of regional health authorities that the Government inherited in 1997 and renamed strategic health authorities, of roughly the same number of health authorities that the Government inherited in 1997 and renamed primary care trusts, or importantlyin this I agree with the Governmentwhen in the hands of GP fundholders renamed primary care commissioners? Does this mean that we got it roughly right?

Andy Burnham: I am intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's line of questioning. There are very important differences, as we said in exchanges across the Floor of the House last week, between GP fundholding and the Conservative model whereby, for completely arbitrary reasons, people had differential access to hospital treatmentand the practice-based commissioning model that we are introducing through these new reforms. Under the right hon. Gentleman's leadership, the NHS had a bizarre paper chase involving a whole process of red tape and people chasing invoices around the system. I am happy and proud to say that we will certainly not replicate that in our NHS.

John Mann: I congratulate the Secretary of State on rejecting Trent strategic health authority's aggressive campaign for a single Nottinghamshire-wide PCT and instead listening to the many thousands of my constituents who queued up to sign my petition for our PCT to remain on its own. Can the Minister assure the House that that practice of listening to the people will underpin the way in which we run the health service in future?

Andy Burnham: I know that my hon. Friend has run a characteristically dogged and tenacious campaign on this issue and that he did indeed present a very large petition to the Department. As I said, that shows that the new PCTs have commanded a great deal of support and that people are identifying with those organisations as providers of health care. I will of course pass on to the Secretary of State the points that he raised. He is absolutely right to say that as the NHS goes forwards, it needs to show that it can listen and, where possible, make changes to respond to local communities.

Point of Order

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. What can you do to help us to restore the reputations of our constituents once they have been badly maligned in this House? I give you the example of a debate on the Child Support Agency on 17 January, when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) referred to my constituent, a Miss Eva Peterson, as a Russian internet bride. He then went on to catalogue the failures of her partner for failing to provide for the child of a constituent of his. Miss Peterson is as far from being a Russian internet bride as it is possible to be. She is a professional woman, a PhD and a former mayor of a major city in Russia. The Petersons are also subject to a campaign of harassment from the hon. Gentleman's constituent, which has resulted in a court order barring her from making further contact. What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to help us to restore that reputation; and is it not a convention of this House that if our constituents are going to be criticised by an hon. Member we should be informed in advance?

Mr. Speaker: All hon. Members are responsible for the words that they use in the Chamber, unless they are unparliamentary, in which case I will intervene. I cannot therefore be drawn into this matter. It would be impractical if hon. Members had to notify the constituency MP of everyone who was mentioned, be they the director of a company or an executive in a health authority, if they resided in another constituency. That would not be helpful or easy to do. However, the hon. Gentleman is the constituency MP concerned in this case, and he has now been able to put the record straight. That will help the reputation of his constituent.

Housing and Commercial Development (Water Supply Assessment)

John Gummer: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require an assessment to be made, before construction, of the water supply requirements resulting from housing and commercial development.
	The House has not yet created a mechanism for declaring a non-interest. However, I should like to make such a declaration. As the chairman of a water company, I ought not to be keen on restricting the amount of water that can be sold. As we have seen from today's newspaper headlines, however, we are facing a serious water shortage arising from a wide range of reasons. Because of global warming, our precipitation level is now lower, and the precipitation arrives in much more concentrated amounts. It therefore runs off the land into the rivers and out to sea much more quickly than before.
	There is no doubt that we face real difficulties relating to our water supply. This comes as a surprise to people abroad, who think of Britain as a nation in which water is ever-present. I was in Paris on Monday, and a senior official there commented that he was now convinced about global warming largely because it appeared that it no longer rained in Britain. That might be an unusual, French way of looking at the issue, but it underlines the seriousness of the situation.
	This is not a party political comment, but I was surprised to discover that there is no statutory reason why anyone building an estate or a commercial building, for example, should ascertain in advance that the water supply and sewerage infrastructure for the site will be adequate. He will want to know that connection is possible, but he does not need to ascertain whether the system will bear the additional weight of his development.
	The Government are proposing to bring 750,000 more people into the Thames Gateway, yet, as far as I can discover, they have made no direct assessment of the ability to provide either a water supply or sewerage facilities for those new homes. Let us take the town of Ashford as a further example. At first, it was proposed to build a significant number of new houses there. Only when the local authority was able to prove that neither the water supply nor the sewerage infrastructure would be adequate was that number cut substantially. Throughout the country, development goes ahead without those fundamental questions being asked.
	When introducing the sustainable communities document, the Government failed to discuss water at all with anyone. Several years of consideration of that document had taken place before formal discussions were conducted with Water UK or anyone else. That shows how unimportant water has been either in the psyche of the nation or in the Government's understanding.
	It is interesting that Members of all parties represented in the House are among the supporters of this ten-minute Bill, including nationalist, Liberal, Conservative and Labour Members. Among them are those who hold shadow responsibility and who have until recently held Government responsibility for environmental matters. One of the reasons for that is the divorce between what was the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and is now the Department for Communities and Local GovernmentI am one of the few who can remember that distinctionand the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Since the sidelining of DEFRA, so that it no longer has a direct influence and control over these matters, issues such as water have become much less important than the aggrandisement of what was the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	I want to make sure that the seriousness of the current situation is brought home to the nation. To build without being able to provide water or sewerage facilities, often in areas that will also be plagued by flooding, is sheer folly. One of the things that many of our constituents do not understand is that we can have both drought and floods in the present circumstances. We can have a shortage of water and yet be plagued by a damaging excess of it. We must therefore startand continue with retrofittingwith the new homes, office and factories being built. Unless we ask the fundamental questions, which the Bill seeks to ensure that we do, we shall not get the right answers. If we do not ask whether there is enough water for such homes, we only have ourselves to blame when such homes get constricted because of drought and water scarcity regulations.
	Of course, that would entail an important role for the water company and the Environment Agency, which would together produce that assessment. If a water company says that it can provide water for a new development, that gives the owner of a new house or commercial premises a clear, bankable indication that he can carry on his home or commercial life without interruption. The fact that the Environment Agency will have to support that will ensure that there is a proper implied contract for the owner of a new home or commercial premises. At the moment, the day after a family moves into a new home, the local water company can say, Frightfully sorry, but we haven't got enough water for you. I hope that that does not happen, but the situation is becoming increasingly sharp and difficult.
	It is not possible to overestimate the state of our water supplies. Three local water companies are considering or asking for planning permission for desalination plantsin this country, Britainwhich we thought were an unfortunate necessity in the middle east and beyond. That is one of the immediate effects of climate change. Given the inadequacy of the Government's response to climate change, that will get worse, not better. Unless we take these practical, simple measures to ensure that such matters are highlighted, we will not be able to defend future generations from a water shortage that will leave them in a position that we never thought would be experienced in Britain in 100 years. Standpipes for much of the south and centre of Britain are something that we did not expect to see at all, yet we are proposing to inject into the area where standpipes are being threatened yet more housing, to the tune of up to 4 million homes.

Charles Walker: Madness!

John Gummer: In this context, madness is a very polite term. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I would put it more clearly. The Government must take this more seriously. I am sorry that it has been left to a Back-Bench Member of Parliament to propose the Bill. This is a simple matter, but it is a matter of gaining information that is necessary not only to the developer, the home owner and the owner of a business but to the nation as a whole, so that we do not develop where water is not available and where flooding is a real risk.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mrs. Caroline Spelman, Mr. Tim Yeo, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Elliot Morley, Andrew Stunell, Hywel Williams and Mr. Nick Hurd.

Housing and Commercial Development (Water Supply Assessment)

Mr. John Gummer accordingly presented a Bill to require an assessment to be made, before construction, of the water supply requirements resulting from housing and commercial development. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 July, and to be printed[Bill 182].

Orders of the Day

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

[Relevant documents: First Special Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee, Session 2005-06,Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, HC 878.Second Special Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee, Session 2005-06,Government's Response to the First Special Report on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, HC 1004.First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2005-06, Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, HC 894. Seventeenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny: Eighth Progress Report, HC 1062.Third Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2005-06, Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, HC 1033.]
	 As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just collected from the board a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden), dated 16 May, in which he says that during yesterday's Report stage debate there was a discussion about the power in new clause 1 to remove or reduce burdens. It is reported in columns 782 and 783 of  Hansard. He says
	At the beginning of the debate on the same Bill in the chamber today, I shall provide further clarification on this specific point.
	I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to make that clarification now, so that we can reflect on it before we reach Third Reading later today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have seen the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am sorry to disappoint him, but my advice is that it would not be appropriate for the Minister to make such statements at this point in the proceedings. There are other ways in which he may do so.

Christopher Chope: Further to the point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be prepared to indicate when it might be appropriate for the Minister to make the clarification available, so that we have it before the start of the Third Reading debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are a number of ways in which the Minister may do that. I cannot go through them all now, but clearly this is not the point at which he should do it. Matters have moved on since the measure was first debated in the Chamber, but there are ways in which this can be done, which the hon. Gentleman can discover for himself and of which the Minister will also be aware.

New Clause 2
	  
	Report on operation of act

'Before the end of the six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out his estimate of the extent to which orders, rules and schemes made pursuant to this Act have
	(a) removed or reduced any burden,
	(b) re-enacted any provision having the effect of imposing any burden, in cases where the burden was proportionate to the benefit that was expected to result from such re-enactment,
	(c) made any new provision having the effect of imposing a burden that has affected any person in the carrying on of the activity, but was proportionate to the benefit that was expected to result from its creation, or
	(d) removed inconsistencies and anomalies in legislation.'.  [Mr. Harper.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Mark Harper: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 7 Expiry
	'Part 1 of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which it is brought into force.'.
	New clause 24 Renewal by Parliament of part 1
	'(1) Before the end of each subsequent period of two years following Royal Assent of the Act Ministers must bring Part 1 before Parliament to be re-approved or rejected by resolution.
	(2) If, within each two-year period, Ministers do not bring Part 1 before Parliament, pursuant to subsection (1), it will cease to have effect.
	(3) If Parliament re-approves Part 1 by resolution, pursuant to subsection (1), it will have effect for the subsequent two-year period.
	(4) If Parliament rejects Part 1 by resolution, pursuant to subsection (1), it will cease to have effect.'.

Mark Harper: New clause 2 aims to inject a shot of transparency into the Bill. It provides for a report on the operation of the Act. It follows recommendation 2 of the Regulatory Reform Committee's report on the Bill, which stated
	We reaffirm the recommendation of our predecessor Committee that Departments should be assessed on their progress in removing unnecessary regulations and controls and not simply on their progress in simplifying measures. We recommend accordingly.
	Transparency is something on which we all agree. Allowing the greatest possible visibility for a process encourages good government and sound decision making; allowing decisions to be made behind closed doors in Whitehall has the potential, as we all know, to have the opposite effect. Deregulation and better regulation are such important agendas that we must shine the light of scrutiny into the dark recesses of departmental decision making.
	In the Committee debates, in which I participated, the Minister was very proud of the Government's agenda. He said on 2 March:
	As a Government, we have committed ourselves to one of the most radical regulatory reform packages anywhere in the world.[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 March 2006; c. 125.]
	and he specifically talked about the culture change that he wished to inculcate in Whitehall. It seems to me that the best way of doing that is to ensure that as much light as possible is shone on the measures in the Act in respect of reducing regulations and burdens on business.
	The Regulatory Reform Committee suggested that one of the key reasons why the regulatory reform orders introduced under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 had been far from successful was the lack of political will within Whitehall. The Committee claimed that low political importance was attached by Ministers and civil servants to propose areas ripe for regulatory reform as compared with bringing new legislation before the House. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, a culture change in Whitehall is necessary and it should not be viewed as preferable for civil servants and Ministers to pin their careers on creating regulations and legislation rather than tidying up existing rules and scrapping obsolete or disproportionate burdens. Indeed, the latter is of far greater benefit to business than the former.
	The new clause would help to bring about the necessary culture change. It would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report and lay it before Parliament, which would provide the opportunity for the House to debate what Ministers would view as the Government's success in reducing burdens. The report would detail what orders had been made and to what effect; what burdens had been removed, what simplified and what other progress had been made. The Government would therefore have to set out in stark detail exactly how deregulatory or regulatory they have been. That should provide a strong incentive for Ministers to encourage and prioritise measures that deregulate and reduce burdens on business, rather than the opposite, which seems the case at the moment.
	I shall deal now with new clauses 7 and 24. New clause 7 is effectively a sunset clause, which suggests sunsetting the Bill after five years. We make too little use of post-legislative scrutiny in the House and in this country, although we are getting better at employing pre-legislative scrutiny. The new clause would represent an important step forward in allowing Parliament and interest groups to input into legislation before it is finalised. We do not do enough to monitor the effectiveness of laws after they are on the statute book. A sunset clause is one form of post-legislative scrutiny; it is clearly not desirable for all legislation to include it because the increased work load on Parliament would be prohibitive. In certain cases, however, there is a clear argument for having sunset clauses, particularly for important and controversial legislation. Control orders immediately spring to mind. Sunset clauses can allow Parliament to look again at legislation and see if it wants to bring it back into force.
	As an alternative, new clause 24 is not a sunset clause, but a renewal clause, providing a separate option for increasing post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and the Government may find it more amenable. Under the new clause, part 1 of the Bill, the most important part, must be brought before Parliament for reapproval or rejection at least every two years.

David Howarth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to our consideration of the Bill, as we missed him yesterday. Will he confirm that neither of his new clauses will have the effect of sunsetting any of its legislative provisions? All they would do is to sunset the power to make the orders. One would have to go a little further to achieve the end, which I believe both his party and mine share, of sunsetting the majority of new regulations.

Mark Harper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for what I think was a compliment. Unfortunately, I was unable to take part in yesterday's debate on the Bill because I had already organised a full day's meeting of a number of veterans' organisations, at which we discussed very important policy matters. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: the new clauses would affect simply part 1 of the Bill and would not cause any measures passed under the Bill to fall. If Members want to achieve that objective, they will need to make further changes.
	The advantage of new clause 24 is that it would allow Parliament regularly to reassess the effectiveness and proportionality of the part 1 order-making powers without creating an insurmountable hurdle to the Government's better regulation agenda. It would also provide an excellent opportunity to reassess just how successful the Government have been. In Committee, Members and the Minister referred many times to the 2001 Act being something of a disappointment in practice, saying that it had not been as successful in allowing deregulation as they had hoped. It would therefore be sensible to use this Bill to put on the statute book provisions compelling Ministers to come to the House more regularly, so that we do not have to come here yet again in four or five years' timeunder a different Administration, hopefullyto discuss another Bill to reduce the burdens on business.

David Heath: May I set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper)? I am quite sure that I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) when I say that his earlier comment was a compliment, rather than an attempt to deprecate the hon. Gentleman's absence. We genuinely missed the hon. Gentleman, who made a valuable contribution in Committee and has made another one today in introducing these new clauses, dealing as they do with transparency and openness. They also make an at least crude attempt to apply a degree of post-legislative scrutiny to this part of the Bill.
	In the spirit of openness and transparency, I would have liked to have had a letter in similar terms to that referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I am little surprised to learn that Liberal Democrat Front Benchers were not accorded that courtesy on this occasion; perhaps the letter is somewhere in transmission at this very moment. One would usually expect to be copied into correspondence dealing with the substance of a Bill.
	As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean correctly said, new clause 2 requires that a report be made by the Secretary of State on the Bill's operation. Previous deregulatory legislationindeed, all sorts of legislationhas not lived up to its expectations. For instance, one of my continuing criticisms is the raft of Home Office legislation, to which I referred in yesterday's debate. Large parts of it were described as urgent matters that needed the House's attention and which were absolutely crucial to the well-being and safety of the populationhowever, years later they still have not been implemented. If such provisions are urgently needed and vital to public safety, one has to ask why they have not been implemented.
	Similarly, in dealing with this legislation, we are entitled to ask, after a period, what the Government have done with this power. Have they used it effectively? Do we have a programme of deregulation, or is the power being used in abeyance as a reserve poweras with the change to Standing Orders in order to implement Law Commission reports, to which reference was made yesterdayrather than to achieve the objectives that we and the Government share? I therefore think that new clause 2 has a great deal to commend it.
	I come now to the issue of sunset clauses. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge was right to distinguish between the powers that lapse as a result of a sunset clause and the orders introduced under those powers. If the Bill becomes an Act, Ministers may be tempted to argue against its renewal on the ground that we would thus be left defenceless against overburdensome legislation and regulation. However, that argument would be spurious, as there is nothing in this and other new clauses in the group that would cause the regulations or the deregulation made under the powers contained in the Bill to be annulled. They would merely enable the House to consider whether assurances given by the Government during the Bill's passage had been implemented in practice. They would allow us to determine whether promises had been kept and the Bill's purposes adhered to, and to ascertain whether we had the sort of deregulatory programme and the lack of excess that the Government have assured us all along was their intention.
	That is a modest ambition. In one way, it might be a desirable concept to sunset all regulations from their origin, but that might run the risk of causing administrative chaos. We understand the complexity of the drafting required to produce a satisfactory response, but the lapsing of a power would not create immediate difficulties. The new clause means that the Government would be required to come back to the House and say to hon. Members, This is how we have used this power. You have seen it in action, and will understand that it was used entirely properly and for its intended purpose. It has worked well, and we ask the House to renew it. Alternatively, the House could say to the Government, You told us that you would use the power for one purpose, but in fact you have used it for quite another or, You told us this power was needed urgently, yet you have not used it at all. The new clause would enable the House to have control of what the Executive want to do.
	I would always argue that the legislature should have control of what the Executive do, especially in respect of the procedures of this House. More than anything else, the Bill is about those procedures. It is therefore entirely appropriate for Parliament to decide whether a power is working satisfactorily, and I am happy to lend my support to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean.

Andrew Miller: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) said, given that he rightly referred to recommendations in the Select Committee report, but I should like to propose a better way than new clause 2 to achieve the sort of reporting that he described.
	The Select Committee looked at this matter long and hard. Yesterday, I referred to the table in the report showing how long orders float around some Departments. We are not at present competent to deal with that or to instigate investigations to determine why it happens. The existing Standing Orders do not allow us to summons a Secretary of State and ask why an order has been floating around for weeks and months. The hon. Gentleman's objective would probably be better achieved by building a more robust approach into the Standing Orders of the Regulatory Reform Committee or its successor body so that we can investigate why such failures have occurred, rather than by introducing a reporting function, which would result in the type of report that is normal in such circumstances. I am being gentle because I have read reports from Administrations of both my colour and his.

Jonathan Djanogly: I admired the section of the Select Committee's report on that issue and I support the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper). In discussing the review in your Committee, did you address the question

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Committee or to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), but he must get his parliamentary terminology correct.

Jonathan Djanogly: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the Committee.
	Was there any discussion in the Committee of the proportion of time spent by Departments on deregulation or regulation, and should that be a matter for review?

Andrew Miller: We looked specifically at the history of the then 27 orders that had been dealt with and, with the limited information we had, tried to ascertain why delays occurred in some Departments. We found that we could report on the facts of a delay, but that we could not investigate the reasons, so if it is the will of the House I should like the opportunity for my Committee to act like a normal Select Committee and inquire into the workings of a Department by, for example, periodically inviting its Secretary of State to answer questions.
	The sunset clause proposed by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean would take us back a long way. The Better Regulation Executive produced a paper, A Bill for Better regulation: Consultation Document, which acknowledged that the powers in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 are constitutionally ground-breaking, noted that the review had identified many positive aspects in the process and described where further improvements could be made. The danger of introducing a sunset clause is that we could throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be a review of the processindeed, of all legislation.

Mark Harper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remark. New clauses 7 and 24 are very much either/or provisions. New clause 7the sunset clausemay go a little too far, but new clause 24, which provides an opportunity for renewal after two years and would not automatically put an end to the whole Bill, might be more to his liking.

Andrew Miller: I realise that the hon. Gentleman could not be in the Chamber yesterday, but I expressed then my fear that the existence of the process he describes in new clause 24 would create inertia in some Departments that would worsen the chances of advancing the regulation process. I think that he and Iand, indeed, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)share the desire to deregulate constructively wherever possible, but I want to find solutions that will not create that inertia in Departments. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Forest of Dean to move away from either of those concepts.
	My hon. Friend the Minister and I have not spoken about this subjecthe has had to absorb rather a lot from me in a very few daysbut I will throw another googly at him and suggest that perhaps it might be sensible for the Government to give a commitment to allow an opportunity, either on the Floor of the House or through my Committee or the other relevant Committees, to hold periodic discussions on the active working of such legislation. If we are to get it right and make it work in all our interests, we need such a mechanism. On the one hand, I do not want to create a situation that allows any excuse inside any part of the Administration to slow down the process, but on the other, I do not want a process that over-complicates the situation for those outside the House who are trying to understand what is necessarily a pretty complex process.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman was present at most of the deliberations in Committee, so he will be aware that the then Minister gave an undertaking that
	a Minister of the Crown will report to the House no less than five years after enactment on the operation of the proposed Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act.[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 March 2006; c. 289.]
	The then Minister conceded that reporting back to the House after a certain period was reasonable, but five years seems far too longhence new clause 2, which requires an annual report to the House. It would probably be helpful when the Minister speaks to the new clause if he could confirm the commitment given by his predecessor and make that clear.
	On the time that we are talking about, the previous approachthe 2001 Act did not contain a sunset clausedoes not seem to have spurred a culture change in the civil service and the Government for urgency. If the legislation was in force for a fixed period, it would give the Minister the opportunity to say to civil servants, We've got a limited period to act and I want to see firm proposals

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the point has been made.

Andrew Miller: I have sort of got the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to run an auction between him and me about the length of time after which my hon. Friend the Minister ought to report to the House, perhaps we ought to start now. I agree that five years is a long time. Certainly, a serious review of such mechanisms ought to be conducted within the lifetime of a Parliament because this is an important issueand leaving aside all the bluster of yesterday, there is an earnest desire on both sides of the House to make some progress.

Charles Walker: How would a periodic review be timetabled? Would not a sunset clause create an imperative for a review that could not be fudged?

Andrew Miller: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the relationship between my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members, but that is not the only relationship that matterswhat matters is what happens daily in Departments in the quest for sensible deregulatory mechanisms. We want to raise that profile higher. We do not want to create any excuse for people to say, Ah, well, we ought to put that one on ice because the sunset clause is triggering a review process in a few weeks' time. That is my concern. With those few remarks, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can make the kind of comments that I have suggested, with a view to ensuring that the spirit of the two points that we have addressed can be dealt with sensibly and constructively.

Patrick McFadden: I do not feel that there will be a great difference between us on this subject. There is a lot of sense in what was said by the hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). We agree about the need for review and the need to examine how the measures in the Bill will operate. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean asked me about previous assurances. With regard to new clause 2, I am happy to repeat the Government undertaking made in Committee that a Minister of the Crown will report to the House on the operation of the Bill no less than five years after enactment.
	Of course I support the notion that the Government should constantly be looking to see how well their reforms are working. We are already taking action in that regard. The Government have proposed an amendment requiring that explanatory documents for all orders made under new clause 19 should include an assessment of the extent to which the order removes or reduces burdens.

Charles Walker: The Minister said no less than five years. Did he mean to say that he would report back after no more than five years?

Patrick McFadden: As I understand it, the assurance given in Committee was that a Minister would report back after no less than five years, and I am happy to repeat that today.

David Heath: rose

Patrick McFadden: I would like to make some progress.
	The Government also believe that all Departments should keep their legislation under review. That is why the Government set up the panel for regulatory accountability, and why there are regulatory reform Ministers in each of the main regulatory Departmentsand a Better Regulation Commission keeping an eye on them all.

Charles Walker: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I am afraid that I would like to make some progress.
	Departments are currently reviewing their regulations and drafting simplification plans, which include measures to reduce administrative burdens on business. Those will be published in the pre-Budget report later this year. The Better Regulation Commission will review the simplification plans that Departments and some independent regulators are preparing. The review will occur while the plans are in final draft form and before they go for clearance by the panel for regulatory accountability. The important thing is that Departments are already obliged to report on their better regulation work as part of their annual reports. They have been required to do that for the past two years. We would expect departmental Select Committees to report on those annual reports as appropriate.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is not the Minister rather missing the point? The Bill is being introduced because the reports and the procedures have not been working to date. That is why we need new procedures.

Patrick McFadden: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the reason behind the Bill is that we must make greater progress than has been made under the 2001 Act. My point is that the Bill will not be the only measure, and that efforts are being made to achieve simplification. Although I agree that we should be open to reviewing orders, I believe that it would be unnecessarily prescriptive, and indeed unnecessary, to include that provision in the Bill.
	As hon. Members will be aware, one of the main aims of the Bill is to provide a power to remove unnecessary burdens. To include yet another requirement in addition to those that I have already discussed could be argued to be contrary to the spirit and the purpose of the Billas I am sure at least some hon. Members will agree.

Andrew Love: As a former member of the Regulatory Reform Committee, I agree with my hon. Friend about the prescriptive nature of new clause 2. However, with the increasing prominence of the idea of deregulation, if we are to show the political will to achieve deregulation and if we are to avoid the culture of Whitehall overcoming what we are trying to achieve, regular transparent reports to Parliament are a necessary reality.

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. There must be a culture in Departments whereby that is a prioritya point made with great force yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
	New clause 7 is a sunset clause. It would be inappropriate at this moment to set an arbitrary date for the expiry of part 1 of the Bill. Such a sunset clause would set a date on which the Act would certainly come to an end. The safeguards in the Bill and the rigorous parliamentary scrutiny that any proposal will undergo are robust. It would not be wise for us to introduce the uncertainty that a sunset provision would bringalthough I am sure that we all relish the thought of going through this process again in five years.

David Heath: Of course we would love to have another go, because this has been such fun. May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the reporting procedure? He is the Minister responsible not only for this aspect of deregulation but for better government practice. I made a suggestion yesterdaywhen speaking to amendment No. 75, I thinkthat was not really responded to: irrespective of statutory requirements, it would be good practice for Ministers who wish to introduce orders under the procedure to explain why they cannot use primary legislation to achieve the same effect. That would be a way of preventing Ministers from adopting a lazy attitude and thinking that the procedures in the Bill would provide an easy way of legislating, although they could draft a perfectly proper Bill, and ought to be using primary legislation.

Patrick McFadden: Some people who have examined the procedure that will emerge when the Bill is enacted do not think that it will be an easier process than primary legislation. It might be a more appropriate procedure on occasions. There may well be more consultation and debate on, and scrutiny of, some regulatory reform orders than would be the case for individual clauses in primary legislation, so we should not be prescriptive.
	In Committee, the former Minister spoke of the need for a culture change across government. The approach that we need to take is one of partnership, with regulators and the regulated working together. What message would we be sending the business community, charities, the voluntary sector and public sector organisations affected by the Bill if we said that the deregulation scheme that it created would be killed off automatically after five years? I return again to the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about the pressures on Departments. Departments will be less likely to invest a lot of resources in pursuing reforms if they might not prove possible in the end. The culture change that we want should offer certainty about, and confidence in, methods of delivery.
	People should be able to rely on primary legislation. They should know that if the Bill is passed, it is there to last. We want to avoid a situation in which those who are regulated by an order do not have confidence in its provisions. I hope that the orders will deliver wide-ranging reforms, as has already happened under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

David Heath: The Minister is straying into exactly the fallacy against which I warned earlier. The Conservative new clauses would bring no uncertainty to orders that have already been made, but would simply mean that the order-making process would have to be reviewed. The Minister's remarks are thus completely irrelevant to the proposition before him.

Patrick McFadden: We have said that there should be a review in no more than five years. However, we are not prepared to sign up to a sunset clause that would automatically bring the Bill to an end. We want Parliament to pass a power in which it has confidence, and that being the case, it should have confidence in that power for the future.
	As I said, the Government have given an undertaking that a Minister of the Crown will report to the House on the operation of the Bill within five years of enactment. There is nothing in new clause 7 to ensure that orders made under part 1 would remain in force, if that is the intention. If they did not, everything done by means of them, including amendments to primary legislation, could be repealed. I can only assume that the intention is for existing orders to remain in force. However, unless there is an express provision to that effect, we cannot be free from doubt. That is why we had a saving provision to make it completely clear that when we repeal the 2001 Act, orders made under it will continue in force. Similar amendments were tabled when the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and the 2001 Act went through Parliament, and, specifically, the Conservative Administration resisted them during the passage of the 1994 Act.

Kenneth Clarke: Can we just clarify one thing? The Minister contradicted himself in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), but I hope that he eventually corrected his slip of the tongue. On the undertaking to report to the House, the Minister confirmed that the report would appear in not less than five years. He seemed to be reassuring us that nothing would be embarked upon with undue hastebut my hon. Friend was trying to press him to say that he was undertaking that a report would be given in not more than five years' time. The Minister appeared to return to that idea later, but will he clarify what he meant?

Patrick McFadden: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I just clarify the fact that that was an intervention on the Minister and that the Minister has not quite finished? Is that right?

Kenneth Clarke: It could be taken as a speech, in reply to which the Minister could apply for leave to speak again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we will take it as an intervention.

Patrick McFadden: I am happy to confirm that the commitment is to report within five years.

Andrew Love: I was a little disappointed by the Minister's comments on new clause 2. As I said, although I do not propose to support it, because its terms are too prescriptive, there is considerable merit in the recommendation by the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform for regular parliamentary scrutiny of what the Bill achieves.
	I have two major reasons, based on experiences for thinking that. First, I served on the Select Committee for about two to two and half years, although it felt a great deal longer. One of the things that would have made our work much more effective was greater transparency with regard to the lack of political will in Departments to achieve the objectives set out in legislation.
	There is no doubt that one way to gain the attention of politicians and civil servants is to have transparency and a regular report to Parliament that allows us, the media and the public to know what is going on. That is important because deregulation has become a much higher political priority for everyone. We are constantly chided by the Opposition for our failures in deregulation, and we continually make commitments to do better. Looking back at the historical record, it is clear that previous Governments have not done that well, either; we all remember the bonfire of the regulations in the early 1990s. It behoves all of us in Parliament to create the conditions whereby we can succeed. The Bill does many things, but it does not achieve proper parliamentary scrutinyI am talking about scrutiny in this Chamberof what is being achieved.
	The second consideration, as I said in an intervention, is the culture of Whitehall. It is undoubtedly the case that the priority both for politicians and for civil servants is creating new regulations and new laws. One becomes a Cabinet Minister by passing laws; one becomes a permanent secretary by assisting Ministers in passing laws. We need to try to create incentives to do away with laws as well as to create them. This measure is a small mechanism, but it is probably the only way in which we can change the culture of Whitehall and create a better opportunity to do away with regulation.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman spoke about how Ministers' performance is assessed. To achieve a culture change, we must shift our focus from the introduction of new Bills and legislation to deregulation and the removal of burdens from business. We must focus, too, on sound administration, and on paying attention to the need to get the operation of Acts of Parliament correct before rushing to introduce yet another Bill.

Andrew Love: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I could add that much of the legislation passed by the House has not been properly thought through, as it has not been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny and other mechanisms. Perhaps Parliament and the Government should consider passing not quite as much legislation, but making sure that the legislation that does proceed through the House is better thought through.
	We should consider what straightforward measures we can take in the Bill to try to change the culture and make politicians and civil servants sit up and think before they carry on with their duties. I believe that an annual report to Parliament detailing progress under the Bill would assist that process a great deal.

Alison Seabeck: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The Bill facilitates the sensible use of the order-making process, and we need to turn orders from the ugly ducklings of legislation into the swans. At the moment, the culture favours the introduction of Bills by Ministers and civil servants, but with the good use of orders we can change that culture.

Andrew Love: I agree.
	The Minister has repeated an argument made in Committee that the requirement for an annual report to Parliament would impose an additional burden on Departments. I accept that that is generally true, but benefits would accrue from the work done by Departments to meet the priority imposed by Parliament, and thus help to change the culture. There is a great deal of merit in the proposal for an annual report. The report would be relatively straightforward to produce, but would give Parliament an opportunity to comment on the success of the Bill, or otherwise. We should remember that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 both failed to achieve our objectives. If the Bill is to succeed, an amendment requiring an annual report would be helpful.

Mark Harper: I am pleased that the new clause has been welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. In Committee, the Government said that they had the most ambitious deregulatory agenda in the world, so I would expect them to welcome the opportunity both to submit an annual report to the House setting out their achievements in reducing burdens on business and to discuss that with Members. Because Ministers would be forced to come to the House to report on progress every year, the proposal gives them a tool for insisting that civil servants take action. The Minister appeared to welcome new clause 2 in principle, when he said that the Government needed to report to the House more frequently than once every five years, but he did not give any concrete commitments. I must therefore insist on pressing new clause 2 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 269.

Question accordingly negatived.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. In Committee, the then Ministernow the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy)gave an undertaking, at column 254, that he would produce a draft of the code of practice referred to in what is now clause 21, in good time for the Report stage so that Members would have a chance to look at it. We shall discuss clause 21 later this afternoon, and I wonder what can be done to ensure that the draft code of conduct is produced. It is still not forthcoming. Surely in such circumstances it would be appropriate for these proceedings to be adjourned pending the production of the draft document.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point is really a matter for debate, and the issue will no doubt come out as we proceed this afternoon. Ministers will answer for themselves the points that he has raised.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You rightly say that this is a matter for debate, but my concern is that, just as the Government talked out the last group of amendments last night, it might be their intention to talk out the amendments to part 2 this afternoon. We would not therefore even have the chance to debate the matter that I have raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is bearing out the point that I have just made. These issues are very much matters for debate, and they will come out in the debate.

New Clause 5
	  
	Delay in proceedings under section 13

'(1) Where within the period set out in section 13 either House of Parliament resolves that the content of an order is inappropriate for provision to be made under section [Power to remove or reduce burdens] , there shall be no further proceedings in respect thereof.
	(2) An order which has the same or similar effect to one that has previously been prevented from passing under the provisions of subsection (1) may not be laid under Part 1 within the subsequent two-year period.
	(3) In this section, two year period means the period of two years beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament under section 12.'.  [Mr. Djanogly.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 6 Reference of order to Second Reading Committee
	'Where within the period referred to in section 13, either House of Parliament resolves that the content of an order is inappropriate for provision to be made under section 1 and that such order should be treated as a Bill, then the order may be deemed to be a Bill and shall be referred to a second reading committee.'.
	New clause 14 Veto by specified number of Members of House of Commons
	'No order may be made under Part 1 where both of the following conditions have been fulfilled
	(a) within the period defined in section 13(7), more than 10 per cent. of the members of the House of Commons have signified to the Speaker in writing that they object to the use of the Act for purpose of introducing the order in question, and
	(b) the members referred to in subsection (1) above are not all members of the same party.'.
	No. 46, in page 8, line 17 [Clause 14], leave out subsection (2) and insert
	'(2) The Minister may make an order in the terms of the draft order subject to the following provisions of this section.
	(2A) The Minister may not make an order in the terms of the draft order if either House of Parliament so resolves within the 40-day period.
	(2B) A committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(2C) A recommendation may be made under subsection (2B) only if the committee considers that
	(a) the provision made by the draft order does not serve the purpose specified in section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(2), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(2) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(2) (as the case may be);
	(b) any relevant condition in section 3(2) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(1); or
	(c) the condition in section 3(4) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(3).
	(2D) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (2B) in relation to a draft order, the Minister may not make an order in the terms of the draft order unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.'.
	As Amendments to Hilary Armstrong's proposed Amendment (No. 46):
	(a), in line 5, leave out from 'with' to end of line 18 and insert
	'responsibility for this matter may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.'.
	Amendment (b), in line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 18.
	Amendment (c), in line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 22.
	Amendment (d), in line 20, leave out from first 'order' to 'the recommendation' in line 21 and insert
	'no order may be made under this Part in the terms of the draft order unless either
	(a) before the order is made
	(i) at least two years have passed since the recommendation was made, and
	(ii) the procedure to be observed under this Part has been observed anew, or
	(b) '.
	Government amendments Nos. 47 to 49
	No. 50, in page 8, line 31 [Clause 15], at end insert
	'(2A) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(2B) A recommendation under subsection (2A) may be made only if the committee considers that
	(a) the provision made by the draft order does not serve the purpose specified in section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(2), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(2) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(2) (as the case may be);
	(b) any relevant condition in section 3(2) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(1); or
	(c) the condition in section 3(4) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(3).
	(2C) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (2A) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under subsection (2) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.'.
	As Amendments to Hilary Armstrong's proposed Amendment (No. 50):
	Amendment (a), in line 1, leave out from 'with' to end of line 14 and insert
	'responsibility for this matter may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.'.
	Amendment (b), in line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.
	Amendment (c), in line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 18.
	Amendment (e), in line 16, leave out from 'no' to 'the recommendation' in line 17 and insert
	'order may be made under this Part in the terms of the draft order unless either
	(a) before the order is made
	(i) at least two years have passed since the recommendation was made, and
	(ii) the procedure to be observed under this Part has been observed anew, or
	(b) '.
	Amendment (d), in line 18, at end add
	'(2D) Where a draft order has been the subject of a recommendation under subsection (2A) and no further proceedings have been taken in the same Session, a Minister may not table a like draft Order within a period of two years after the day before the draft order was laid before Parliament pursuant to section 12.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 51 to 53
	No. 54, in page 9, line 8 [Clause 16], after subsection (4) insert
	'(4A) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the draft order is approved by that House under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(4B) A recommendation under subsection (4A) may be made only if the committee considers that
	(a) the provision made by the draft order does not serve the purpose specified in section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(2), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(2) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(2) (as the case may be);
	(b) any relevant condition in section 3(2) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(1); or
	(c) the condition in section 3(4) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(3).
	(4C) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (4A) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.'.
	As Amendments to Hilary Armstrong's proposed Amendment (No. 54):
	Amendment (a), in line 1, leave out from 'with' to end of line 14 and insert
	'responsibility for this matter may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.'.
	Amendment (b), in line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.
	Amendment (c), in line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 18.
	Amendment (e), in line 16, leave out from 'no' to 'the recommendation' in line 17 and insert
	'order may be made under this Part in the terms of the draft order unless either
	(a) before the order is made
	(i) at least two years have passed since the recommendation was made, and
	(ii) the procedure to be observed under this Part has been observed anew, or
	(b) '.
	Amendment (d), in line 18, at end add
	'(4D) Where a draft order has been the subject of a recommendation under subsection (4A) and no further proceedings have been taken in the same Session, a Minister may not table a like draft Order within a period of two years after the day before the draft order was laid before Parliament pursuant to section 12.'.
	No. 55, in page 9, line 18 [Clause 16], after subsection (6) insert
	'(6A) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft order may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under subsection (5) and before it is approved by that House under subsection (6), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.
	(6B) A recommendation under subsection (6A) may be made only if the committee considers that
	(a) the provision made by the revised draft order does not serve the purpose specified in section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(2), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(2) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(2) (as the case may be);
	(b) any relevant condition in section 3(2) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the revised draft order referred to in section 3(1); or
	(c) the condition in section 3(4) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the revised draft order referred to in section 3(3).
	(6C) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6A) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft order in that House under subsection (6) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.'.
	As Amendments to Hilary Armstrong's proposed Amendment (No. 55):
	Amendment (a), in line 1, leave out from 'with' to end of line 15 and insert
	'responsibility for this matter may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.'.
	Amendment (b), in line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 15.
	Amendment (c), in line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 19.
	Amendment (e), in line 17, leave out from 'no' to ' the recommendation' in line 17 and insert
	'order may be made under this Part in the terms of the revised draft order unless either
	(a) before the order is made
	(i) at least two years have passed since the recommendation was made, and
	(ii) the procedure to be observed under this Part has been observed anew, or
	(b) '.
	Amendment (d), in line 19, at end add
	'(6D) Where a draft order has been the subject of a recommendation under subsection (6A) and no further proceedings have been taken in the same Session, a Minister may not table a like draft Order within a period of two years after the day before the draft order was laid before Parliament pursuant to section 12.'.

Jonathan Djanogly: This important group of amendments seeks to introduce similar changes to clauses 14, 15 and 16, which outline the procedure that would apply when an order is to be made under the negative resolution procedure, the affirmative resolution procedure or the super-affirmative resolution procedure. One of our long-held criticisms of the Bill is that it lacks adequate safeguards for the use of its fast-track order-making powers, which many people believe will abolish our constitutional longstops. The Bill has widely become known as the abolition of Parliament Bill.
	We supported the Government's amendments to part 1 of the Bill yesterday, following their stated intention that the Bill would deal only with deregulation. However, we made it clear that our overall support would depend on the introduction of further safeguards. The introduction of a procedural veto to the Bill, which would be exercised either by the Houses of Parliament or by Select Committees, was one of the primary mechanisms recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and me on Second Reading, as a means of introducing such safeguards.
	For that reason, an amendment to clause 16 was tabled in Committee. It would have required an order to have been withdrawn or amended if an amendment to the order had been agreed by one or both of the Houses of Parliament or by the relevant Committees of either House. The amendment would have granted Parliament the power to insist on amendments to the order which, if not accepted by the Minister, would have to be withdrawn. The Minister would then have to start the process all over again.
	The Conservatives were, admittedly, far from being the only ones calling for a parliamentary veto on the use of the procedures in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have done the same, and I noted with interest the reports of the Regulatory Reform and Public Administration Committees, among whose recommendations was a call for an amendment to the Bill to provide scope for an effective veto.
	Our support for the insertion of the procedural veto into the Bill meant that we welcomed the then Minister's announcement in CommitteeI see him in his place todaythat he would introduce a parliamentary veto on the use of the procedure. The Conservative party welcomes the Government's amendments on the statutory veto as a significant step in the right direction. It is accepted in most quarters that the Bill requires adequate safeguards so that it is not used in future as a tool for the Executive to abuse their power and discard Parliament. The amendments are meant to carry through the Government's pledge to build in a veto over an order for the relevant Committees of both Houses of Parliament. However, the amendments fall far short of introducing the robust and firm veto that we would expect to see inserted in such an important and constitutionally significant Bill.
	Our concerns were heightened when we read the wording of the amendments. The Minister needs to explain exactly what the amendments entail. A Select Committee of either House may recommend that the relevant draft order should not be proceeded with. That recommendation, however, can be discarded if it is rejected by a resolution of the relevant House. Furthermore, when making such a recommendation, the Committee must have considered a range of factors, including those listed in clause 3. Our primary concern is that the conditions imposed on the relevant Committee, by which it is able to exercise such a veto, are excessive.
	The primary difference between the Government's amendments and the amendment tabled by Conservative Members in Committee and now in new clause 5 is that the Government's proposals allow for the veto to be exercised only by a Select Committee, whereas our proposals allow for a veto by either the Committee or the Houses of Parliament. I note that the Procedure Committee, which recently produced an insightful report on the Bill, recommended that the power of veto should be exercised
	outside the Committee as well as within it.
	While the Government's amendments allow both Houses to become involved in the process, they do not contain an automatic right of veto. If either House is unhappy with an order, it cannot veto it until a Committee has acted. The Procedure Committee's report noted that there was no need for the Bill to include a power of veto exercised beyond the Committee. It recommended that the mechanism by which the House of Commons exercised the veto should rest on House of Commons procedure. Is the Government's failure to empower Parliament by including an automatic veto in the Bill a result of that recommendation? If so, what steps will be taken to amend the House's procedure to ensure that it possesses a veto and that the mechanics are fully in place? More urgently, why will the Government not accept that this is a matter of great concern to Opposition parties and other Members who have voiced concerns and deal with the matter now, setting out the balances and stating the powers in the Bill?
	While the Opposition are concerned about the lack of a parliamentary veto under the Government's amendments, we are also concerned that a Committee could have its veto overridden by a resolution of the relevant House. According to the wording of the Government's amendments, the veto of a Select Committee, which the Cabinet Office proudly proclaimed in its press release on 4 May, is effectively nothing more than a recommendation. The difference between a veto and a recommendation is obvious and needs no further explanation. Were a Commons Committee to recommend that no further proceedings were to take place, is it not likely that the Government would simply use their majority in the House to overrule it? Would not that negate completely the introduction of the veto?
	If the Government have their way on this set of provisions, how will Parliament be able to ensure that the more contentious issues are dealt with in the Lords, where the veto is not capable of being vetoed by majority party votes?

Greg Knight: The Government deserve credit for listening to representations and giving ground in some other areas, but does my hon. Friend accept that in this area they have failed to meet the assurances given by the previous Minister, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), to the Procedure Committee? Is he aware that on 7 February this year, the then Minister told the Procedure Committee:
	so our commitment is very clear, that we will not seek to do anything which is highly controversial. The Select Committee will make a judgment on that and the Select Committee can veto any recommendation from a minister.
	The veto now proposed falls far short of that commitment.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of the problem is that the Government have been consistently late in responding to comments made in Committees and in producing draft clauses for review. We have been treating Report, to some extent, like Second Reading because we have not seen the clauses to comment on them.

Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is making sound points in criticising the adequacy of the veto offered. Will he reflect on whether a veto is totally reassuring? As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) just pointed out, the former Minister repeatedly gave assurances in various forums that nothing that was controversial would be taken through in this way. I take that to mean that a substantial number of Members of the House saying that a measure should be subject to the parliamentary process should be adequate to stop the order making procedure being used. If all that is offered can simply be overridden by the working majority of the Government of the day, very controversial measures could be taken through using this simple, scarcely parliamentary procedure. Just a bare majority of Members of the House of Commons would make sure that an unsuitable process was used to override a significant section of public and parliamentary opinion.

Jonathan Djanogly: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Were the matter concerned to be dealt with in the Lords, where the veto is more likely to be effective, I can imagine Ministers moaning and groaning that unelected Members of the House of Lords should not concern themselves with administrative or deregulatory issues. As a result, we could be caught in a cleft stick.

David Heath: Actually, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was entirely in line with the new clause that we shall discuss in this group, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) and I tabled and which I believe the hon. Gentleman has set his mind against. It is no good his saying that his right hon. and learned Friend has made an important point if he disagrees with the fundamentals of it when it comes to a vote.

Jonathan Djanogly: I will come on to the hon. Gentleman's new clause, which has its problems, although, as he will hear, I believe that it merits further discussion.
	We believe that the best course of action is to follow through the spirit of Government amendment No. 46. However, that amendment needs improvement to allow the veto to be exercised by either of the Houses or by Committees. I shall now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about new clause 14, as I know that he wants me to address it.
	The Liberal Democrats' new clause 14 seeks to grant the House a statutory veto over orders introduced by virtue of this Bill. It suggest a novel alternative to relying on the recommendations of a Select Committee, already burdened and restricted in its freedom of action by the factors, as set out in the Government amendments, that must be considered when rejecting a draft order. That alternative is that a parliamentary veto may be exercised by a quorum of at least 10 per cent. of the House. The new clause also contains a safeguard of its own, in that those exercising their veto must encompass more than a single parliamentary party. That would prevent a single political group from rejecting the Government's measures on purely partisan grounds. It has been suggested that an order introduced under the Bill, which, if we are to believe the Government's words, would relate only to deregulation and Law Commission proposals, should be stalled by a parliamentary veto only if it is controversial. If that is the case, the order should be presented to Parliament in the form of primary legislation.
	I agree that new clause 14 would in practice mean that only controversial measures would be vetoed, and I understand the spirit of it. However, it goes too far by setting a precedent in other areas of procedure. Issues such as what should be a relevant percentage and entrenching minority rights would need a much wider review.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman mentioned minorities. I think that the Liberal Democrats' new clause has its merits, in that the minority parties would be included. The hon. Gentleman is more than aware that we are not included on all Select Committees. In fact, we are on very few of them. That means that we would have no say in any veto. The Liberal Democrat proposal would allow us at least an opportunity to participate.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated his ability to participate. I do not think anyone is saying that he cannot participate in the progress of legislation. We maintain, however, that establishing a veto has significant implications for the flexibility of the way in which the House works, and would require a full review.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman told the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that he had demonstrated the ability of minority parties to exercise this right in the Chamber. The point is that the Government's procedures require them to exercise it in a Select Committee. We are trying to enable the whole House to influence what happens to procedure. Members of a Select Committee are, by their nature, select.

Jonathan Djanogly: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I gave some time to his party's proposal because I think there could be some merit in it, but I also think that we need a full, much wider review than it proposes.

Kenneth Clarke: The difficulty is that we cannot reflect fully in the time before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I find myself in the slightly embarrassing position of supporting what the Liberal Democrats have said. At a meeting, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) and I urged that view on the then Minister, and I think that it has considerable merit.
	Of course I accept that we cannot normally allow minority vetoes on the processes of the House or on ordinary parliamentary procedure, but yesterday I accepted new clause 19reluctantly, as did my hon. Friendas a step in the right direction. I was prepared to allow some flexibility in abandoning parliamentary procedure for non-controversial measures. Surely, though, if 65 Members say that a measure merits being subject to the full parliamentary process, it is not a non-controversial deregulatory measure. If we were in office, I would take the view that even if the 65 were shell-backed left-wing members of the Labour party with a stray Welsh Nationalist added, they would be entitled to the full parliamentary process, and to be allowed to veto a short-cutting of the whole parliamentary procedure, which we are all prepared to contemplate only in the case of genuinely non-controversial deregulatory measures.

Jonathan Djanogly: I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says. It is an interesting debate. According to company law, 10 per cent. of members can call an annual general meeting but cannot scrap a resolution. The percentage figure would need to be reviewed carefully in the context of the way in which the House works. Let us not forget that these proposals were presented to the House a matter of days ago. I respectfully suggest that to say that there should have been or could have been adequate time is not realistic, but, as I said to Liberal Democrat Members, I do not discount it as an argument, and it may be followed up in the other place.

Andrew Miller: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman in his difficulties with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I am sure he would accept that all motions before the House tabled by Back Benchers must have equal status. According to his logic, the House would be forced to debate any early-day motion that attracted more than 65 signatures. That would tie down parliamentary time to an impossible degree.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, if only in sayingas I think I have been sayingthat a good many of the issues will need to be examined in the round. It is not just a question of slapping down a clause and saying Isn't that a great idea? Let us put it into legislation. The Minister might even agree with me about that.

David Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: I will give way one last time.

David Howarth: The problem that new clause 14 at least attempts to solve is precisely the question of what counts as controversial for the purpose of a choice between the procedure proposed by the Bill and ordinary legislation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the report of the Committee proceedings. During those proceedings, his hon. Friend the. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) suggested that if one Member objected, the matter would be controversial and should be treated as a Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman has made the same point again. He has heard what I have had to say. I shall move on now, but I think the Minister has received the message that Members would like to hear his views.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend now accept that there may well be scope for common ground between all Opposition Members, so that when the Bill goes to the other place an amendment along these lines will be able to command common support among Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, and receive applause when it returns to the House of Commons?

Jonathan Djanogly: I think that the matter should be seen in a wider context, and in that context I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. What I can say is that our party will discuss it with our noble Friends.
	Another of our concerns is that the amendments severely restrict the period during which the Committee's veto can be exercised. Amendments Nos. 46 and 50 allow for the exercise of the veto in the negative and affirmative resolution procedure respectively only after a 30-day period commencing with the day on which the draft order is laid before Parliament. That means that the period during which the veto may be exercised is limited to just 10 days.
	While I understand the time limit, I wonder on reflection whether there is really a need to prevent a Committee from exercising its veto in the first 30 days following the laying of a draft order before Parliament. Perhaps the Minister could explain. In any event, we look forward to hearing the debate on the issue, particularly the debate on amendment (a), which was tabled by members of the Procedure Committee.
	Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 allow for the veto to be exercised under the super-affirmative procedure only during the period between the moment when the Minister lays a statement before Parliament detailing representations made on the draft order and the moment at which the order is voted on in both Houses and therefore approved. It is unclear how long the gap between the two events is estimated to be. Is it not feasible that they could occur within a matter of days of each other?
	We are also concerned about the conditions that must be met for a recommendation from a Committee to be valid. They appear onerous, and may provide the Government with a simple excuse to reject a Committee's recommendation rather than resorting to an attempt to defeat the recommendation in the House.
	The factors listed in clause 3 that a Minister must take into account when introducing an order are essential. They provide a valuable safeguard, one of the few originally contained in the Bill before widespread criticisms forced the Government to back down. For that reason it is right that the Minister must consider those factors, but is it necessary for a parliamentary Committeeconsisting, I am sure, of competent and respected parliamentariansto have to take account of the same factors and more?
	The changes to the Bill announced recently by the Cabinet Office are vital from a constitutional viewpoint. They will help to prevent a Government from abusing the Bill and from being able to amend any legislation on the statute book, but imposing conditions on a Committee of Parliament that is carrying out its function of holding the Executive to account and preventing abuses of power is surely unnecessary and over-restrictive. Do the Government not consider a parliamentary Committee sufficiently responsible to make a wise enough decision on a draft order introduced under the Bill? For that reason we tabled amendment (b) to the Government's amendments Nos. 50, 54 and 55, calling for the removal of subsections (2B), (4B) and (6B). We believe that such changes would create the robust and flexible veto that so many constitutional experts believe is vital to ensuring that the Executive do not abuse the power conferred on them by the Bill.
	Our concerns about the Government amendments appear to be shared by the Procedure Committee. I note that it has also tabled amendments to all the Government's amendments relating to the statutory veto, calling for the omission from amendment No. 46 of proposed new subsections (2B) and (2C) and the corresponding subsections in amendments Nos. 50, 54 and 55. They would allow a Committee of either House to recommend that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order. There would be no factors to consider and the onerous conditions imposed on the Committee by the Government amendments would cease to exist.
	I shall now discuss our further amendments to the Government amendments, which would prevent a Minister from tabling a draft order for a period of two years if the same or similar order had been vetoed by the relevant Select Committee. A two-year moratorium has been imposed on altering the regulatory reform order, but no such standstill period is contained in the proposals. I noted with interest that such a moratorium was also recommended in the Regulatory Reform Committee's report. It was aimed at preventing a Minister who has just had an order vetoed from laying a similar order before Parliament.
	In recent years, we have seen a growing culture in which the Executive ignore the will of Parliament or, should I say, the people. Certainly, we see that happening in the European Union with underhand plans, now being implemented, to bring in by stealth elements of the failed constitution. In the UK, we see it in the Government bringing in their regionalisation planswhether it be through primary care trust mergers, about which we heard earlier today, or in respect of the policedespite losing heavily in the north-east referendum. Our amendments are aimed at stopping that move towards legislation by stealth and regurgitation of failed plans.
	An important point about the statutory veto concerns the make-up of the Committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order. It is unclear in the Bill what type of Committee it should be. Is there to be a permanent Committee, charged with reviewing all orders issued under the Bill? If so, I draw the Minister's attention to the Procedure Committee's conclusion that parliamentary scrutiny of draft orders should not necessarily be in the hands of a single Committee responsible for all orders, as in the Bill, but be discharged by whatever Committee has the relevant subject expertise, including the departmental Select Committee. Will the Minister clarify which Committees the Government envisage undertaking those crucial roles?
	The Conservative party believes that the exercise of this veto, which was a central plank in the Government's effort to placate the fears of opponents of the Bill and was recommended by both the Public Administration Committee and the Regulatory Reform Committee, should be far more flexible than is envisaged in the amendment. The opinion of a Select Committee charged with reporting on a draft order laid before Parliament under the Bill should carry more force. There should be a less restrictive time period for the exercise of the Committee's recommendation, and fewer conditions should be imposed on the exercise of that recommendation.

Andrew Miller: I think this is the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have had to listen to our long and complicated debates on the Bill, so welcome to the Chair. To make it even more complicated, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was speaking, my glasses fell apart, so I shall have to ask the Minister to hold my notes a little further away until my spare glasses arrive.
	Both in partnership with my fellow members of the Select Committee and subsequently in exploring practical ways forward, I have carefully considered the matter of the veto. I was certainly left with the impression, as reinforced by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that we were not being offered a qualified veto and I have discussed with Ministers where that would leave us. I have expressed to my hon. Friends privately and put it on the record that I am uncomfortable with the Government's amendment, so I am anxious to listen to the views of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee when he moves his amendments, particularly when I have amended his amendments further in respect of the two-year rule.
	What powers does the Minister envisage the Committee having? That is the most important issue. The Secretary of State said in a letter of 11 MayI referred to it yesterday and confused the hon. Member for Huntingdonthat the statutory veto was not a blanket veto. There may be good technical reasons for that. I am not a lawyer, but am always prepared to listen to them. Often one has to listen to them at length; I do not want to disparage the profession of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe(Mr. Clarke), but he might be happier with a bigger Bill.
	I am more interested in the practical ways of how the House deals with its business. That issue was raised by the Liberal Democrat MP, Brian Cotter, in 2001. In the Second Reading debate on the Regulatory Reform Bill 2001, Brian Cotter, then the Liberal Democrat Member for Weston-super-Mare, asked the then Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), to explain what he meant about a ministerial undertaking. The undertaking given has proved to be mighty effective; only 27 orders were dealt with through the process in the last Parliament. The reason is probably that a ministerial undertaking given to the House is an absolute one.
	If the Parliamentary Private Secretary would like to pick up my glasses from over thereI have just seen them through the corner of my eyeI would be extremely grateful, especially as the next part of my speech is written in micro-dot. What a wonderful service we get here. That's better, I can read my notes now. The ministerial undertaking given is, I think, a very powerful vehicle. I would like to establish clearly and unambiguously with the Minister whether he is prepared today to restate that ministerial undertaking. I cite what the then Minister said when he gave it:
	First, I am happy to confirm that the order-making power will not be used for large and controversial measures
	we have already debated that.
	Secondly, the Government would not proceed with an order against the Committee's wishes.[ Official Report, 19 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 117.]
	No qualifications there; it was said clearly that the Government would not proceed against the wishes of the Committee. If the Minister can today, irrespective of the partial statutory veto, give a similar undertaking, that would make a forceful point. As I look around at hon. Members in their places who have been or are Ministers, I know that they realise that such an undertaking would be of very considerable significance.

Lynne Jones: A ministerial undertaking is no substitute for stating something in the Bill. Government amendment No. 46 includes no such statement; in fact, the restrictions on the use of the so-called veto are so great that it is difficult to imagine any circumstances in which it would be impossible for an order not to serve the purposes specified.

Andrew Miller: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I am talking about practical politics; about a Committee's ability to say to a Minister without fear of judicial review that it is not prepared to let them continue along a particular course. That has proved an effective mechanism; that said, I would prefer to adopt an approach in keeping with the views of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. The key is to ensure that this House has a practical means of stopping in their tracks a Minister who is going too far.

David Heath: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I know that his intention is good, but the point is that Government's extraordinary proposal is to impose a statutory bar on what a Select Committee of this House can do. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Minister to assert that he will not use two thirds of the provision, which seems absurd. The only way that the Minister could make that binding is to be the only Minister involved with it, and to stay in office for ever, which is unlikely. If he has no intention of using the provision, why on earth include it in the Bill?

Andrew Miller: Given the Minister's experience over the past 24 hours, he probably wants to move on rapidly, like his predecessor, despite his sterling work. A ministerial undertaking is understood by this House to be binding on the Government.  [Interruption.] Does the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe want to intervene?

Kenneth Clarke: My understanding of ministerial undertakings is that they are regarded as binding only on the Government of whom the Minister in question is a member. Leaving aside the history of ministerial undertakings not being adhered to by some Governmentsand although I am sure that, if we took office, we would be impeccably deregulatory and simultaneously sensitive to the procedures of the Housethe fact is that many undertakings given by the present Government would not be regarded as binding on successor Governments. I envisage that in 10 years' time, ministerial undertakings will be regarded as somewhat irrelevant. Indeed, that is why we did not accept assurancesgiven constantly by the previous Minister in response to complaintsthat the original Bill would not be used in the way that it plainly allowed for if someone stuck to the law.

Andrew Miller: I have some sympathy with that point, but I am simply trying to find a practical way forward. We have yet to hear the Minister's views on this issue, but I am sure that the House will agree that the restating of the undertaking to which I have referred would be more than a nuance and would shift the ground, albeit slightly.

Robert Smith: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is trying to come from, but under the previous regime, a Committee could communicate its concern and the Minister could then invoke his undertaking not to go against its wishes. How would the ministerial undertaking work under the terms of this new provision, which would constrain a Committee in expressing its reservation?

Andrew Miller: I know where I am coming fromit is where I am going to that sometimes proves a little difficult. In practice, I would expect a Committee of this House to make use of the potential veto at any stage up to the point at which the order in question is issued; I would not want to insist that it be used only when the draft order is published.
	Let us consider the following example. An innocent-looking draft order affecting London museums met with the approval of the original consultees and, at first glance, of my predecessor Committee. But when it went out for broader public consultation, a legitimate authority expressed reservations and demonstrated to the Minister in question that an error had been made and that it was not appropriate. So one needs the power to exercise the veto at any stage, with or without statutory restrictions. Such a view is based on the undertaking given by the then Minister on Second Reading of the 2001 Act.

Greg Knight: Surely the point is this: we were given a ministerial undertaking on 7 February and what we need now is not a second one, but the delivery of the first. That can be done today if the Minister accepts the Procedure Committee's amendments.

Andrew Miller: As I said earlier, I have some sympathy with the views of the authors of those amendments, which provide a more clinical way of dealing with this issue. However, it seemed to me appropriate at least to explore this idea and to invite comments from the Minister, in order to help inform our proceedings. I understand where the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is coming from, but I have yet to hear the Minister explain why the veto was drafted in this way, rather than according to the right hon. Gentleman's understanding, which is based on evidence given to his Committee.
	I turn to the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) relating to the two-year rule. Essentially, they are probing amendments that seek to discover what will happen when a Minister is hell-bent on introducing an order, despite opposition from a Committee of the House. Clause 16, which deals with the super-affirmative resolution procedure, clearly sets out the reporting procedure. There are mechanisms that enable Ministers to tweak and amend an order in the light of discussions with Committees of both Houses, and with public bodies and individuals. So what starts as a draft order is not necessarily the final text. It may be amended or qualified in writing, or the body or organisation for which it is promulgated may make appropriate assurances. Yesterday, I gave the example of the assurance given to both Houses by the chairman of the Forestry Commission that satisfied the concerns expressed by my Committee.
	Those possibilities are available in the tweaking process, but what happens if the Minister says that he will keep coming back even though the Committee does not like what he says? First, the parliamentary business managers would not be terribly enamoured of that and the Minister would not survive for long without being ridiculed for trying to repeat the same mistake over and over again

David Heath: He would get promoted.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me. The alternative to that is that practical politics might stop a proposal returning to the House within the lifetime of a Parliament.
	These are probing amendments, designed to elicit an explanation from the Government of when it would be sensible, in the lifetime of a Parliament, for a Minister to bring back to the House an order that a Select Committee had decided was not suitable for regulatory reform. Under what circumstances would the Minister consider that appropriate?
	I am trying to break these complex legal issues into simple and practical procedures that would allow hon. Members to do their job and examine the work of the Executive in an effective manner. The work of the Regulatory Reform Committee would be strengthened if Conservative Members bothered to turn up, as I noted previously to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), but that is a matter for him to deal with.
	An effective mechanism is in place, but we are trying to make it stronger so that it can deal with the enhanced powers set out in the Bill. I hope that my comments will inform that debate, and I look forward to the response from my hon. Friend the Minister. That, in turn, will help the House to determine the best way forward.

David Heath: I am intrigued by the notion expounded by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) that ridiculing Ministers causes them to be sacked. In my experience, they get promoted or retain their salaries when their jobs are taken away. However, he clearly knows more about that than me.
	We are dealing with one of the three most important elements in the Bill. Yesterday, I set out the three ways to secure some safety with the proposals. I said that that could be done by prescription of what could be dealt with by the Bill, by proscription of what could not be so dealt with, and by protectionthat is, using the safeguards available to the House to influence the use of procedure.
	This group of amendments is entitled Parliamentary veto, but that is an unfortunate misnomer. A better alternative might be Parliamentary caveat, as we are certainly not talking about Parliament vetoing what the Government propose. We have heard a great deal about the value of ministerial assurances and a Select Committee of the House was assured, right at the start of our consideration of the Bill, that there would be a Select Committee veto on proposals. The former Minister, who is now Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, originally thought that that mechanism was already in the Bill. It was gently pointed out to him that that was not the case, but he seemed to retain that misapprehension even as the Committee stage began. Eventually, he promised that it would be brought in later.
	The tenor of the Government's response to the quite proper criticism of the Bill voiced by hon. Members of all parties has been that the Select Committee structure would have primacy in the procedural arrangements. It therefore bodes very badly for the exercise of the powers in the Bill that Ministers are not prepared, even now, to accept the recommendations of the Procedure Committee or of the Regulatory Reform Committee. The members of those Committees have great knowledge of these matters, but their proposals were not adopted by Ministers when they put forward their amendments.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a fine thing to trust our Select Committees with the responsibility that he describes? If Ministers are not prepared to do that, they should say so. They gave the impression early on that they were prepared to trust the Select Committee with the responsibility, so can he understand why they will not do so now?

David Heath: I do not understand anything about the Government's approach to the Bill. They have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the realisation that they could not get through their entirely preposterous original proposals. They are in full retreat, making concession after concession, but even now they do not seem to understand the basic principles that underlie the many criticisms levelled at the Bill from many quarters, and so are unable to respond to them adequately.
	The Government do not propose a Select Committee veto on procedure. It is transparently obvious that the most that Select Committees can do is to make a recommendation in that respect. I emphasise that we are not talking about a veto on an order itself, as Ministers could always use an alternative procedure to bring forward an order if the original procedure were rejected. They could use for that purpose the primary legislation that in normal circumstances would be the proper vehicle for introducing an order and, in turn, that would mean that an order would be properly scrutinised by this House and the other place.
	That alternative was always open to Ministers, but the idea was to institute a fast-track procedure that would avoid that level of scrutiny before an order went into a Statutory Instrument Committee. No controversial measure was to have been put through the fast-track procedure, but the proposal under consideration would allow a Select Committee to consider an order only under a very constricted time scale. The result would be that that Committee would not be able to consider an order for too long, or to listen too carefully to the voices from outside the House. The few hon. Members serving on the Select Committee concerned would be able to make a recommendation, but that could be overruled by an order of the House.
	In those circumstances, what would the motion put before the House contain? Would it allow a proper debate and give people an opportunity to express their concerns and say why they did not consider the fast-track procedure appropriate? Of course it would not. The matter would be dealt with at the end of the day in a business motion requiring a negative or an affirmative resolution of the House, and if anyone had the temerity to say no it would be pushed through on a deferred Division on a Wednesday afternoon. I would bet my life that the Government would have their way because no one would know about any of the arguments why they should not.
	What considerations can a Select Committee make in even making such a recommendation? Can it follow its instincts? Can it listen to the advice that it was given? No, it cannot. The proposals from the Minister lay down the limited range of criteria that the Committee can use in coming to a conclusion. It is improper to constrain a Select Committee's considerations in that way. I know of no circumstances in which Ministers have tried by statutory means to restrict the activities of a Select Committee of the House.

Andrew Miller: That is why I wanted to explore whether it would be better to address the problem through a different route. It is a real issue and we have to deal with it, but I want to find the best solution.

David Heath: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to reach the right outcome, but I do not share his optimism that an assurance from Ministers on the Treasury Bench that they will not apply what is clearly laid out in statutory form in their proposals would have any value whatever. The Select Committee would be very constrained in the criteria that it could use to determine whether the procedure was right. It is transparently obvious that if a Minister did not like the result of the Select Committee's considerations, he would overrule it in the House. There is nothing in the provisions to stop a Minister behaving in that way. Even if the excellent new Minister on the Treasury Bench was absolutely determined that he would not use the provisions in that way, I do not believe that the writ of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Officeor is it to the Duchy of Lancaster, I am not sure of the exact title?would run to the Home Secretary or to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman underestimates my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench.

David Heath: I may be underestimating the Minister, but I have seen dodgy procedure from past Home Secretaries and I do not believe that a Home Secretary would listen to a junior Minister in the Cabinet Office. No assurances from the Treasury Bench will hold water.
	For that reason, if the Government press ahead with the proposals in their amendments Nos. 46, 50, 54 and 55, it is essential that we amend them today to remove those appalling restrictions on the latitude allowed to Select Committees in undertaking their work, both in terms of time and the criteria they must use to assess whether an instrument is appropriate for the fast-track procedure.

Kenneth Clarke: I think that I am correct in saying that if a Select Committee was contemplating a recommendation that the process should not be used it would almost certainly be advised by its Clerk that it was not able to make such a recommendation unless it addressed the terms of the legislation. It would be open to the Committee to make a recommendation only if it could demonstrate that it was complying with the conditions put on it. If the Select Committee decided as a matter of parliamentary principle that the process was not appropriate it would receive professional advice from the Clerk that it was not in a position to make a recommendation on that basis.

David Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. Such statutory constraints on the exercise of a Select Committee's discretion are unique, but it is clear that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) said earlier, most, if not all, of the good reasons for assessing that an order was inappropriate for the accelerated procedure would be declared ultra vires. We would have the absurd prospect that a Select Committee decision was justiciablereviewableon the basis that it had not followed criteria set down in statute in reaching its decision. When has a Select Committee ever been bound by statute, and justiciable in the courts, in the exercise of its discretion? The suggestion is preposterous.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree

Edward Miliband: Hon. Friend?

Oliver Heald: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in this case.
	Does my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) agree that in the important example given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) yesterday about tax cuts being something that could be fast-tracked using the order-making power, a Select Committee would not be able to veto it because it would have to go through exactly the same hoops as the Minister? As we know, tax cuts are not covered by that process so it is not a real protection in the circumstances outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend.

David Heath: I have hon. Friends on both sides of the Chamber so I, too, shall call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend in this matter. He is right. Anything within the terms of the order, and that the Minister has correctly assessed as within the terms of the order, must be so in the view of the Select Committee because it has to apply the same criteria. Therefore, any political judgment on the essential question of what is controversial means nothing in the context of the provision. We were told at the start of the Bill's proceedings that it would not be used for anything controversial. Then, the Government elevated the threshold slightly and said that it would not be used for anything highly controversial. I hope that we have now gone back to controversial.
	Unless we make the necessary amendments, the whole measure will be meaningless. If the opportunity arises, I shall press hard my amendment (c) to Government amendment No. 46, because removing those constraints is crucial to the work of Select Committees. Even if that were achieved, we would still have the problem, alluded to in a short debate between the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and most of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches, who did not agree with him, about a genuine parliamentary veto.
	A Select Committee has a Government majority. If the purpose of the safeguard is to ensure that something that is deeply controversial to a section of the Housewhether on the Government Benches or elsewhereis not put through a fast-track procedure, a simple majority in a Select Committee with a Government majority will not do the job, however assiduously the Committee may attempt to do its job. With the best will in the world, its members may not be aware of the local implications of an order put through by that process that might be deeply controversial. The procedure can be used not only for general public Acts, but for local Acts. The Regulatory Reform Committee or its successor might be completely unaware of a particular local Act, not because Members had not done their research properly, but because there was a burning political issuewe are, after all, politicians, which is why we are sent to this placeof which they were unaware because none of them was from that area.

Andrew Miller: If I might correct the hon. Gentleman, that is why we have a consultation process. That is why the order relating to London museums, to which I referred earlier, was dropped. The consultation process identified an error relating to a local matter, which would certainly not have been an issue in Burnley, the constituency of my predecessor as Chairman.

David Heath: I understand the hard work that goes on in Select Committees to try to deal with such issues, but as we all knowcertainly those of us with local authority backgroundsoften there will be no response to a consultation and the matter appears entirely benign, until it is implemented. Then everybody says, Why didn't you ask us? Why didn't you consult us? Why didn't you allow our objections to be heard? Of course there was the opportunity, but no one asked the right person at the right time about their problems.
	I want to make it clear that we do not suggest the sort of process in new clause 14 from our partisan point of view. We deliberately set the threshold beyond what the Liberal Democrat party has in the House. I do not think that 10 per cent. is an unreasonable figure. If 10 per cent. of the House feel strongly about something, the voice of those hon. Members should be heard, because that subject is controversial by definition. If that 10 per cent. comprise at least two parties represented in the House, it is clear that no simple mechanism on behalf of one party for political advantage is involved.
	I believe that if those circumstances apply, it is right that that should apply a brake to the procedure. Let us remember that it would not be a brake on the order. The order can still be translated into primary legislation and go through its normal course of action. It is not a question of a minority party preventing legislation; it is simply suggesting that the legislation must be scrutinised. There are Liberal Democrat Members, Conservative Members and Members from the minority parties who very clearly understand the merits of that case.

Roger Gale: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that the House should be able to challenge the view of a Select Committee, and most certainly that of an Executive with overweening power, but I am very concerned indeed about the second part of his proposal because there is a quaint and long-standing belief that Members of Parliament are individuals who speak for themselves and their constituents, based on an assessment of the problem. If he and the Liberal Democrats go down the road of suggesting that any measure in the House must have the support of more than one party, it is a very slippery path indeed.

David Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observation. First, parties are established under Standing Orderswe understand what parties areand secondly, it was a criticism when we first suggested such a proposal that to allow one party effectively to block a parliamentary procedure was inappropriate, because that should require a greater degree of consensus. That is precisely why we suggested the provision. I find it slightly odd that we now hear a quibble from the other direction, suggesting that such things should be in the hands of a single party, but perhaps that could be debated later. However, the proposal has considerable merit in terms of parliamentary procedure. Simply because we do not do it now is not a good enough reason to say that we should not do it in the future.
	The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made the point about early-day motions being discussed on the Floor of the House. There ought to be a mechanism for that, too, if enough hon. Members want to do so. When an early-day motion is signed by more than half the membership of the House, such as the one on the removal of the Post Office card account, I cannot believe that we as a House cannot insist that we should debate the subjecta majority of hon. Members from all parties very feel strongly about ityet we do not have the mechanism to do so.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we are in danger of having too many veto proposals in the Bill? The idea of the Select Committee vetosomething that we have all pressed for throughout consideration the Billshould be applauded and strengthened, and we should be pressing for that. However, I wonder about considering other proposals that relate to blocking minorities on the Floor of the House. That would set a major precedent because it could be argued that perhaps a blocking-minority approach should be adopted for every procedure. Surely, if we were to do that we would need a major inquiry and discussion between the parties about how we tackle our procedures on numbers. The next step after that would be to say that we have entrenched majorities for constitutional matters. It would then be a different kind of Parliament, and it may be a good one, but to make that changewhich would have huge significance constitutionallypiecemeal would be the wrong thing to do.

David Heath: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I simply do not agree with him. We need to set a precedent occasionally. We are discussing an entirely novel procedure, to which a brake needs to be applied, and we have suggested a good brake. That view is clearly shared by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who chairs the august body in the Conservative party that is working on exactly these matters. His opinions should carry some weight among Conservative Members.
	We ought to send a signal today, which is why, given the opportunity, I will press new clause 14 to a Division this evening, and I will do so content in the knowledge that it would serve the interests of Back Benchers, minority parties and those who would not otherwise have the opportunity to make their voice heardand who ought to be heard, either in a Select Committee or a Statutory Instrument Committeeat a later stage. My worry about leaving the issue to another place, as I think the hon. Member for Huntingdon intimated, is that Members of the House of Lords will be very cautious indeed about expressing an opinion, because it is quintessentially a House of Commons matter.
	My worry is that they will simply not feel able to make the necessary intervention. That is why tonight's debate is so importantit may be our last opportunity to make it clear that the procedure that the Government propose will not do. If the Bill is passed today by a Government majority, I do not believe that it will come back to usI wish it would, but my fear is that the other place will feel inhibited about intervening in House of Commons business for all the reasons that we know, and therefore it will not come back to us for reconsideration. Therefore, tonight is make-your-mind-up time about whether we accept the very flawed mechanism that the Government propose.

Greg Knight: I only want to correct what I think was a slip of the tongue. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to divide the House on new clause 42. I presume that he meant amendment No. 46.

David Heath: I referred to new clause 14. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of Procedure Committee, misheard me, but I am grateful to him for intervening because it is important that the discussion of these procedures is not only intelligible but audible. So I repeat that I wish to seek a Division on new clause 14. We had very important debate yesterday. This is the important debate today, because if we get this wrong the procedure, albeit not quite so open-ended as before the Government amendments were accepted yesterday, will nevertheless be too open-ended for the comfort of any hon. Member.

Tony Wright: There is, of course, a slight gap between the way in which we talk about Parliament and how it operates, and perhaps we ought to confess to that, in the interests of people who listen to our debates and read the reports of them. That was caught quite nicely by the casual remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee, when he said as an aside that the Conservative members of that Committee do not turn up. I do not say that to make a trivial party point of the kind that we are prone to make; I say it only because we are talking about the great powers that should live within our Select Committees and how important it is that their will should prevail, and we then go on to talk about the glories of Parliament itself. Yet that is suddenly pierced when we see the reality of how such things work.
	It is rather amusing in a way to watch the Opposition parties failing to agree on what would be appropriate for Parliament to do in the circumstanceswhether it is better that a Committee should decide, whether the whole House should decide, or whether a percentage of the House should decide, all of which ideas depend on different versions of what Parliament is and how it operates. However, it is quite a perverse argument to suggest that the House itself should not decide on a matter before it. That argument is being put, because the House is governed by parties and inbuilt majorities. That is true; it is how our system worksbut it is odd to pick away at that system in one little segment without acknowledging the fact in our wider deliberations.
	That is a curious proposition, because anyone looking at it from the outside would think it a rather sensible procedure for the whole Housethe Commons bit of parliamentary sovereigntyto exercise its power, so that it can constitutionally trump whatever a part of the House might decide. That would seem the constitutionally proper arrangement. Indeed, that is precisely how we proceed in the entirety of our business. To acknowledge publicly that we do not want to proceed in that way, as is being argued, is to give the game away, in a sense, about how this place operates. If we are going to do that, we should at least follow the argument through and give the whole game away, and not pretend that we can just give a little bit of it away.
	I take this area of the Bill and the amendments seriously. They are crucial. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) just said, we are talking about one of the most objectionable bits of the first incarnation of the Bill. It was right to say that it would become less objectionable, or unobjectionable, only if an effective veto were put into the Bill to provide a mechanism to enable us to say, It is not appropriate to use this mechanism for this purpose, and for that view to prevail.
	The question is: have the Government inserted such a mechanism? The answer is: partly. We have, perhaps, a qualified veto. We have a recommendation power. However, if it is a veto, it could be argued that we have a provision to veto the veto. Then we are back to the arguments that I have just described about how Parliament works. Parliament can collectively decide what to dobut we know that in reality, that can subvert the mechanism that we think we have established to do a job for us. As has been said, we are talking about a Committee that has a Government majority anyway, so why do the Government need the reassurance of a veto on the veto when they have inserted a procedure that, on the whole, is thought to be satisfactory?
	There may be disagreements about the mechanisms being recommended, but what unites everybody who is contributing to this discussion is the proposition that we want a strong rather than a weak veto. We want an effective veto, rather than an ineffective one. We are entitled to look to the Government to provide assurances about what is going to happen in the days to come to deliver that effective veto, so that this whole area of concern about the Bill is comprehensively removed. That is my main point.
	I have one further point on a matter that has been raised alreadytrying to specify the grounds on which the qualified veto can be exercised by a Committee. Government amendments Nos. 46, 50, 54 and 55 insert that qualified veto, but they also set out the only grounds that a Committee may properly take into account when deciding whether to exercise that veto. Including in the Bill in that way the grounds on which a Committee may make a decision is entirely new. Previously, that has always been a matter for Standing Orders.
	There are two difficult alternatives: either the courts will have the power to review proceedings in Parliament, or the limitation is entirely ineffective because the courts would hold that power without an express provision overriding article 9 of the Bill of Rights. They have no power to examine a Committee's reasoning, because to do so would be to impeach or question proceedings in Parliament. It is constitutionally extremely peculiar to invite the courts to review judicially the validity of parliamentary decisions. That is why a number of the amendmentsincluding one tabled by meseek to remove those parts of the veto provision.
	I hope that when he replies, the Minister will assure us that the concerns being expressed about the effectiveness of the veto will be addressed, and that he will reflect further and deliver a veto that will be strong rather than weak, and effective rather than ineffective. I hope that he will reconsider whether it is necessary, or indeed constitutionally desirable or possible, to specify the grounds on which a Committee of the House can exercise its power.

Greg Knight: I rise to speak about Government amendment No. 46 and amendment (a) to it, which is in my name and the names of other members of the Procedure Committee. Amendment (a) is a cross-party amendment, although I am aware that some members of the Committee see it as a probing amendment, while others feel very strongly about it. Government amendments Nos. 46, 50, 54 and 55 introduce the Committee veto that we have been discussing in respect of the orders under the Bill.
	The Procedure Committee recommended that a veto should be added to the Bill, so I give the Government one cheer for delivering the veto. However, in introducing that veto they have only partly met their commitment to the Committee, because they have sought to define the grounds on which the veto can be exercised. I have serious concerns about that on two grounds. First, as has been said by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), it raises the possibility that the courts might be encouraged to examine how a Committee reached a decision, and whether it did so properly. That would be clearly contrary to the accepted understanding of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said. It could draw the courts into areas that they have hitherto been at pains to avoid.
	Secondly, and most importantly, the grounds themselves are narrowly defined and certainly do not live up to the Government's previous undertaking that no order would be proceeded with if the relevant Committee judged that it was an inappropriate use of the powers under the Billfor example, because the matter was controversial. I refer Members to my Committee's first report of this SessionHC 894and evidence pages 17 and 18. We received evidence from the Minister who was then at the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), who gave at least three ministerial assurances on this matteror perhaps I should say one ministerial assurance that was repeated three times.
	The hon. Gentleman was unequivocal about the veto. In answer to questioning, he said:
	so our commitment is very clear, that we will not seek to do anything which is highly controversial. The Select Committee will make a judgment on that and the Select Committee can veto any recommendation from a minister.
	During the same evidence session, he went on to say:
	Ultimately, the sanction that select committees have is, 'It doesn't feel right. You have overstepped what we anticipated and we are not willing to give our consent to this going forward either in the way you propose', so it should not be a negative, it should be an affirmative order or it should be super-affirmative, 'or it should not go ahead at all'.
	Later, he returned to the scope of the veto and, referring to what the Committee could do, he said:
	so they can either move it up one, or move it up two in fact, so they can move it from negative to super-affirmative, or indeed they could just say, 'We don't think this is suitable at all for this committee', and we are back to the drawing board to seek an alternative way of implementing the order.
	There was no mention of restrictions on the use of the veto, which are now before us.
	My Committee's amendment, and others, would remove the definition of the grounds for the use of the veto, thus leaving open the possibility that an additional veto, which could be exercised outside a Committee, could be introduced by Standing Orders.

Hilary Armstrong: It might help the House if I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the evidence that he is citing was given before the amendments to limit the powers with regard to the orders were tabled. The Government have been very careful to limit those powers in the manner for which the House asked through the Select Committees that examined the matter. They simply linked the veto to the new restricted powers. Part of the almost circular argument that we are having is that although we have agreed the limit on the powers, it is said that the powers are now so narrow that the veto must be widened. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands what the Government were trying to do. During this debate, yesterday's debate on narrowing the powers is being forgotten. The Government tried to link the veto to the new definition of the powers.

Greg Knight: I am not sure that that is a valid point. The powers in the Bill may well have been narrowed, but that has been done only in line with what Ministers said the purpose of the Bill would be anyway. Ministers have introduced provisions that achieve what they told us, through assurances, that the Bill would be used for. I do not accept the point that the right hon. Lady is making.
	We do not want to widen the veto, but we think that it should be exercised as was indicated by the former Minister when he gave evidence to the Procedure Committee: if a measure is controversialalthough controversy is outwith the scope of the vetoa Committee should be able to veto it. That would not stop the Government getting their legislation through. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, we are merely suggesting that we should be able to say to the Government that the fast-track procedure is not appropriate in a specific case, so the measure should be subject to greater scrutiny. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady, she did not make a valid point at all.
	If the Government are not ratting on a promise, they are certainly guilty of backsliding on an unequivocal ministerial assurance given to a Select Committee of the House. I hope that we will be able to vote on amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 46. Quite simply, the House should not put up with this.

Alison Seabeck: As a member of both the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I am generally pleased by the progress that has been made. However, I still have concerns about this group of amendments, especially Government amendments Nos. 46, 50, 54 and 55. Those concerns have been voiced with greater knowledge and expertise than mine by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright).
	Although the Regulatory Reform Committee's special report, which has been much quoted, has, it appears, provided the basis for many of the revisions that have been made to the Bill, no further amendment has been made to one or two aspects. However, there is still a case for both this House and another place to consider those aspects. That is why I have put my name to several amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
	In my view, and in that of the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Public Administration Committee, it is preferable that after an order has been laid, no draft order to the same effect, or any which, although it has been reworded or modified, would have the same effect, should be laid within two years. The veto as it stands does not bring with it the two-year moratorium that the Regulatory Reform Committee felt was appropriate as a matter of course. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will again consider proposing further changes, which could be brought forward in another place, to introduce such a measure.
	The Regulatory Reform Committee felt that the demand for a two-year breathing space did not expect more from Ministers than at present, as they already voluntarily respect that rule. However, in the interests of our peace of mind, and with regard to possible abuse by future Governments and Ministers who are not so well disposed or responsible as the present incumbents, this matter demands further ministerial consideration.
	Unless a Committee's veto was overturned by the House, the Committee would have significant powersalthough, as hon. Members have said, its precise role is not exactly clear. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) raised concerns too, so I hope that the Minister will clarify the time scale in which the veto must be exercised, because it is 10 days in the case of Government amendment No. 54, but a less specific period in the case of Government amendment No. 55.
	There appears to be no scope for a formal veto if the real problem is an order being categorised as controversial or inappropriate. Members of the Standing Committee will recall that we could not get a clear definition of those terms, despite the then Minister's best efforts to provide reassurance. The Bill is thus narrower than the informal undertaking that has been respected since the introduction of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Will the Minister confirm whether such an undertaking remains on offer this time? If not, will he consider including it more formally in the Bill?
	The Minister's predecessor said to the Public Administration Committee:
	to get the veto provision correct will take a great deal of work and thorough consideration.
	There has been a great deal of thorough consideration, but we may still have work to do to ensure that the Bill meets the concerns raised in the House today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not rule out amendments that would insert the two-year restriction, following the gentle and friendly probing of Labour Members.

Kenneth Clarke: I almost stopped trying to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I agreed with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) when he moved new clause 5 and everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). On these questions of parliamentary procedure, we are Members who are usually brought together across the Floor in such discussions. I speak only to underline the importance of the points that are being made for the benefit of those in another place. The general understanding outside is that the Government have made a substantial retreat, and it might be felt that the worst problems have somehow been solved and that there is not a great deal left to do. Unless the Minister makes an extremely generous response to the debate, I hope that Members of another place will examine seriously whether we are adequately reassured by what has been done.
	I regard the Bill as dangerous because we are talking about circumventing the ordinary parliamentary processes of considered debate and judgment and using instead a fast-track procedure that might have broad application. I am prepared to take the risk of passing such a Bill because of my enthusiasm for deregulation. I have no reason to doubt the bona fides of either Minister who has handled the Bill in detail because both genuinely endeavoured to have as wide a Bill as possible so that they can deliver deregulatory measures. I look forward to reading the reports and finding out what has been delivered. I think that the Minister will be contending with the culture of Westminster and Whitehall, but I hope that his good intentions will produce something worth while.
	We need the strictest safeguards when introducing a procedure that can further reduce the use of the proper parliamentary process for potentially difficult subjects. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said, we should hold the Government precisely to the undertakings that the former Minister gave. I thus echo everything that has been said about the Select Committee having the right to exercise a veto at its own discretion, bearing in mind the concern that we have all expressed that the procedure should not be used to circumvent parliamentary procedure when a significant body of interest is entitled to be heard.
	I have to saythis is about the only note of dissent that has arisen between any two Members who have spoken, because we have not yet heard the ministerial replythat I have never been completely reassured by the Select Committee veto. Select Committees have an in-built Government majority. A year or two ago, the House was given the opportunity to reconsider the way in which Select Committees are appointed because of concerns that the powers of ministerial and Whips Office patronage were being brought to play in appointments to Select Committees. I do not want to discuss whether that is still true, but the danger is only too obviousand it might recur. At present, there is a great deal of patronage. We are lucky that such good Chairmen as the ones who have spoken have emerged from the process. Nevertheless, there is an in-built Government majority.
	The undertakings that were given from the outset were outlined in a precise quotation from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. We were reassured that the full parliamentary process would be used for any controversial procedure. In my opinion, that means giving an adequately large minority the opportunity to have their views heard and debated, and to insist that an important change goes through the correct process.

Charles Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend concerned that the Government could lean on the more ambitious and younger members of the Select Committee to ensure that they come round to the Government's way of thinking, although that would go against the rules of the House?

Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Cannock Chase gave some candid views on how the House works in reality. We should be careful about too much candour, but I have not the slightest doubt that Governments of all complexions use the process to which my hon. Friend refers if a Select Committee looks like it will be too difficult. There is, of course, a political process behind that, which we all realise has to be borne in mind.
	I reiterate my belief that if a substantial body of opinion in the House wishes to insist on the full procedure, it should have the opportunity of doing so. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon for putting him in a slight difficulty, but I have no way of getting out of this because I shared a platform with the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) from which we advocated such an idea. In the end, that is the only satisfactory reassurance we can have.
	The Liberals have been quite generous in putting the limits they propose beyond their reach as a single party. I am not sure why one of the three major parties of the House should be prevented from having a full parliamentary procedure if it so wishes, but I agree with my Front-Bench colleagues that that would involve much wider considerations, including the whole question of who determines what we debate on the Floor of the House and how we do it. That needs to be addressed.
	I continue to hold the view that the one thing that will be completely beyond the control of the Government is stopping 10 per cent. of the Members of the House indicating, in some formal fashion, that they believe that the full process should go ahead. If we can get 10 per cent. to insist on that, it means that there is some interest, with which I probably profoundly disagree, that is entitled to have the full parliamentary process before the legislative machinery is changed.
	My hon. Friends are worried about precedent. One of the most common arguments used by the civil service and others against deregulation is the precedent that might be created if we reopen something. Precedent has to be approached with caution. Let me make it clear: I do not think that the proposal establishes any precedent for allowing a minority to block legislation that has gone through the legislative process. It sticks in our craw when we have lost a measure by one vote, but one vote is sufficient in this place for the majority to overrule the minority. However, we must go through a process before that conclusion can be reached. I do not see precedent being created because of the unique nature of the Bill. We are talking about altering primary legislation by a process that cuts out all the ordinary legislative process precisely because of the need for speed and to avoid delay, and because we are so keen on deregulation.

Tony Wright: Was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to the political factors the key consideration? Surely if the relevant Select Committee, with, as we keep saying, a Government majority, recommended that it was not appropriate to use the order-making power for the purpose proposed, and if the Government nevertheless sought to overturn that by using their majority to get a resolution of the House, there would be political consequences and it would be decided politically, which is how we decide everything in this place.

Kenneth Clarke: That is why the constraint on the Select Committee to make that recommendation has to be removed. If the Select Committee makes a recommendation exercising a discretion and a political judgment that the process is unsuitable, I accept that it would be a bold Government indeed who went ahead with the change, although the point made was valid: we are not talking about the Government having to expose themselves to a full debate on the Floor of the House or some particular process to get their resolution through. We have now reached a stage at which half the time votes on orders and procedures have been reduced to a ritual part of the process of the House. If we are talking about the reality, the change would probably be decided by a deferred Decision on Wednesday, as I think the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. If we are being indiscreetly candid, probably a very high proportion of the Members of Parliament ticking the piece of paper would not bother to inquire closely exactly what subject they were voting on. It is too trivial a procedure to override such a change.
	I do not accept that the small body of Members who have the privilege of being on the Select Committee should be our only protection. A substantial body of the membership is enough.

Hilary Armstrong: rose

Kenneth Clarke: I welcome the Minister to her new task. She is doing her best, with all these concessions, to sort out a rather miserable process that she inherited. I acknowledge all that. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire precisely and brilliantly responded to her main point. The undertakings were given by a Minister who said that the Bill would be used for only narrow purposes. I shall not go back to yesterday's debate, but I do not believe that the Bill as it stands has narrowed the scope of the powers to the scope described by the former Minister. It allows for far more than ordinary deregulation. That must be looked at again.
	I hope lots of the orders go through. I hope the Government make liberal use of their new process. I undertake not to vote in deferred Divisions for trivial reasons to block deregulatory measures and upset the Government's timetable, or to cause difficulty. However, I want the reassurance that if a big body of opinion wants something debated, we will all be obliged to debate it and subject it to the full parliamentary process.

Hilary Armstrong: I want to make a point that I was never allowed to make in my previous incumbency, but none the less learned. The official Opposition can bring matters to the Floor of the House. When they chose to do so, the usual channels agreed with them, and such things were debated on the Floor of the House.

Kenneth Clarke: I am being tempted to go into much wider issues on Supply days. That relates only to the Front Bench. There are occasions when Back Benchers feel frustrated that the leaders of their party do not wish to bring to the Floor of the House things that they want to debate. I do not often feel the frustration that a left-wing member of the Labour party must sometimes feel about the priorities given to business by his Front Bench, but there were times during the Iraq war when I was slightly impatient about the opportunities we had, the timing of the debates and the form of the motion proposed through the usual channels to be debated on the Floor of the House. On deregulatory matters to do with forestry and the licensing of vendors of game, one might often find that the two Front Benches and the usual channels do not have the monopoly of the views of every hon. Member about what the proper procedure should be.
	I do not understand why Ministers are being so cautious. I have not doubted their good will because when I debated this matter with the previous Minister I believed him, and when I listen to these Ministers I believe them when they say that they have no intention of undermining Parliament and they intend to deregulate only on non-controversial measures. They give us every assurance that it has never crossed their minds to introduce politically controversial measures that might upset a significant minority or to avoid proper debate by taking it through their proposed process. I still cannot understand why the Government will not include that in the Bill, as they would bind all their successorsand not just themselvesif they did so. They are receiving advice from someone in the Department who does not share their deregulatory enthusiasm or who has a sneaking hope that one day a Government will get stuff through Parliament quicker and with less inconvenience. Why do the Government keep tabling late and mealy-mouthed amendments that do not live up to their undertakings? My praise for their deregulatory intentions would be followed by praise for their sensitivities to sentiments in the House if they tabled amendmentsalternatively they could accept the amendments tabled by the Conservative spokesmen and by the Liberal Democratsand include in the Bill something that they have been telling us since they first introduced it. I do not understand their reluctance to do so.

David Howarth: I agree with every word that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, and I do not intend to add to his contribution. I shall, however, make a few points that have not been made in our debate.
	Our debate has focused on two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that I am happy to support. Amendment (c) to Government amendment No. 46 removes from the Government's so-called vetoit is not, in fact, a vetothe requirement on the Committee to consider various things under clauses 2 and 3. New clause 14 attempts to provide a genuine parliamentary veto. I wish to make only one point about amendment (c). Yesterday, the Government were keen to tell us that their judicial review of ministerial discretion did not require the insertion of the word, reasonably, in the Bill. That creates a problem, as what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The word, reasonably, does not appear in Government amendment No. 46, but considers does. That leaves scope for judicial review, as long as the problem of the Bill of Rights is overcome, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase(Dr. Wright) said.
	The Government should therefore say categorically in reply to the debate that they do not intend the amendment to override provisions in the Bill of Rights that forbid the courts from interfering with what happens in the House. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, if they say that that statutory form of words is not intended to have legal effect, why have they introduced the provision, as there does not appear to be an enforcement mechanism? They are therefore left in an obvious dilemma: either they add words to the statute that do not have any effect, or they must do what should always be done in the circumstancesif one does not want words to have legal effect, one leaves the matter to convention or to the Standing Orders ofthe House, which are not justiciable. I fail to see why the Government have not taken that route.
	My main argument concerns new clause 14. The procedural protections against the misuse of the Bill are still required, even though yesterday changes were made to the purposes for which the Bill can be used and to the subject matter to which it can apply. It can no longer be used to change itself, or to change the Human Rights Act 1998. However, we did not debate a far more important restrictionthe proposal that the Bill should not be used to change any of the country's constitutional arrangements. We did not discuss that amendment, so it is possible to use the Bill for those purposes. Yesterday, we examined the example of changes to trial by jury, which is not protected by the Human Rights Act. The Bill could be used to make dramatic changes to that right, and it is still possible to reform local government using an order under the Bill. There is therefore a great need for procedural protections, which is why we have proposed such protections in new clause 14 in addition to the so-called Committee veto, which, as everyone knows, is not a veto.
	The only argument against our proposal is that it will set a dangerous precedent. That argument suggests that we should not do the right thing now for fear that our slightly dim successors will not be able to tell the difference between the problem that we face and the problem that they face. Nevertheless, new clause 14 is not a departure, because there are such mechanisms, albeit with a slightly different construction, in Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 92 deals with what happens when a Bill has been considered by a Second Reading Committee or by the Scottish Grand Committee. The Report stage could take place in a Special Committee or in a Scottish Grand Committee. Standing Order No. 92 says that if a motion is introduced in the House to allow for that and 20 Members rise in their place and object,
	the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
	Standing Orders already provide a blocking mechanism on procedure that requires a fuller hearing of the matterin this case, the Report stagethan would otherwise be the case. That is precisely what we are trying to do in new clause 14.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has the text of the Standing Orders before him, and he is quite right. I do not have the text with me, but I think that I am right that it does not specify that those Members should come from more than one party in the House.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is quite rightthe standing order does not provide that extra protection. However, new clause 14 does so: Members who object to the use of the procedure should not all come from one party.

David Heath: Another blocking mechanism can be deployed by a minority of one. It is often seen and heard on Friday afternoons when we debate private Members' Bills. It is usually the role of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to shout, Object, thus preventing the progress of such Bills. A blocking minority can therefore act to procedural effect.

David Howarth: Indeed, that is a blocking minority of one from one political party.
	The purpose of new clause 14 is to protect minorities. It provides geographical protectionwe have heard the point about local Actsand it also protects political minorities in the House and within parties. A matter can be controversial for a substantial number of Back Benchers, but it may not be controversial for their Front-Bench spokesmen. We need a mechanism that allows such minorities not to block the progress of legislation completely, but to demand further debate.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman is kind in accepting interventions, but he has contradicted himself. He says that the provision is meant to protect minorities, including minorities in a single party. Forgive me, but it is not inconceivable that 70 members of the parliamentary Labour party would disagree with their Front Bench, as they often do so at present. If they wished to object, but did not receive any support from the Opposition, their objection could not be heard under his proposal.

David Howarth: At least the position of those Members would be better than it would be if the new clause is not accepted. The hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, is making the best the enemy of the good.
	The purpose of the new clause is to make sure that in circumstances where the matter before the House is controversial in the minds of a sufficient number of Members, the full Bill procedure will be used. The main problem that we have had with the Bill all the way through is that Ministers have told the Committee that they did not intend to use the procedure for controversial matters, but they have not been prepared to offer any substantive definition of controversial. That is why, to extract Ministers from that difficulty, Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches and in other parts of the House have tried to solve the problem procedurally. New clause 14 offers, in effect, a procedural definition of what is controversial.
	I cannot understand why the Government resist. They do so, presumably, because they do not want written into the Bill matters that could possibly become subject to judicial review. They want to protect themselves from the courts, but, with their own system of a Committee veto, they are offering a line of argument that may well lead to the Committees of the House being subject to exactly the same review in the courts. I find that to be precisely the wrong way round. It ought to be Ministers, more than Committees of the House or the House itself, who are subject to the courts.

Patrick McFadden: May I begin by offering the House a point of information relating to a point of order raised earlier about the regulator's compliance code? I am advised that that was sent to the joint Chairmen ofthe Standing Committee which considered the Bill on3 April, and that copies of that draft have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, so I believe the document is available, even though

Oliver Heald: The Minister may know that that has been the subject of discussion between one of the Ministers' offices and my own. I think it was I who raised the matter in Committee and asked that the code be made available to Members, and I was given no notification at all when the letter was sent to the Committee Chairmen. We were left floundering about, not knowing that it was in the Library. That was most unhelpful.

Patrick McFadden: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I was trying to be helpful to the House by providing the information that I could find today about how the document had been distributed.

Andrew Miller: For clarification, the letter to which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire(Mr. Heald) referred was the subject of a parliamentary question that I tabled, so it was in the public domain and he could have found it.

Oliver Heald: It is pretty discourteous for the matter to be left in that way, when I had specifically raised it in Committee.

Patrick McFadden: May I suggest that we return to the issue at hand?
	Listening to the contributions on the veto power, I am struck by a curiosity. Yesterday there were many contributions from hon. Members who argued that the powers set out in new clause 19, 20 and 21 were perhaps an improvement on the original version of the Bill, but that they were still far too wide. They could be used, for example, to abolish trial by jurywe heard that again a few minutes agointroduce euthanasia, and possibly even recast our relationship with the European Union, yet today, in the discussion of the veto, which is related to those same clauses, the powers in them appear to have shrunk. We are told that the veto is not worth much because it is related to those powers, which yesterday were criticised as being so wide. Today they seem to have shrunk so much that they might not apply to our friend the Wolverhampton butcher. There is a curiosity in the criticisms of tying the veto to the powers set out in new clauses 19, 20 and 21.

Roger Gale: In the light of the letter that the Minister kindly sent to me earlier today, which is about powers in new clause 19, can he explain what he had in mind when he wrote that letter?

Patrick McFadden: With the Deputy Speaker's permission, I am happy to do so.
	The legal effect of new clause 19 relates to the power to remove or reduce burdens. The purpose for which the power can be exercised contains two alternatives. The first is the removing or reducing of any burden resulting for any person directly or indirectly from legislation. The second is removing or reducing the overall burdens resulting for any person directly or indirectly from legislation.
	Removing or reducing a burden from one person may increase the burdens upon others, so the first alternative could permit an overall increase on persons as a whole. For example, where a regulatory regime is being placed on a risk basis, costs on low-risk businesses could go down, while costs on high-risk businesses may go up.
	The second alternative requires a removal or reduction of burdens overall, although this would permit the imposition of new burdens where the overall effect was a removal or reduction of burdens. This is similar to the position under the 2001 Act; if a burden is removed, new burdens may be added. Orders as a whole, including any new burdens, must meet the safeguards, including, for example, being proportionate to the policy objective of the order.
	In particular, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the precondition in clause 3(2)(c), which requires that Ministers consider that the provision as a whole
	strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it.
	This precondition, which is clearly particularly relevant where burdens are imposed or increased, also mirrors the existing position under the 2001 Act. The explanatory document will include both a summary of consultation responses, and an assessment of the extent to which an order to be made under new clause 19 removes or reduces burdens. Also, a detailed impact assessment would be provided, where appropriate, and these documents would explain the rationale behind the proposals.
	The expectation is that in most cases the overall burden will have been reduced, but for the reason stated the Government believe that we need the flexibility to add burdens as well as remove them, if these burdens are to be useful in delivering better regulation.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In summary, when he replied yesterday to my question whether, on his interpretation of new clause 19,
	it may well result in this procedure being used in circumstances where overall burdens will be increased, rather than decreased[ Official Report, 15 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 783.]
	and he said no, what he really meant to say was yes.

Patrick McFadden: What I have set out would be the intention in most cases, but there is the possibility that I outlined to the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago.

Robert Smith: Having clarified that and confirmed that the evidence from the Department to the Select Committee on Procedure was to the effect that burdens could be increased under the clause, is the Minister not creating the ground on which we need an effective and sophisticated veto system to ensure proper scrutiny, if the Government are to use a regulatory reform or regulatory deregulation Bill to increase the burdens on society? Measures should be properly and effectively scrutinised in the House to make sure that they do not unnecessarily increase burdens. We therefore need the amendments that we tabled to constrain the procedure through which the House might examine those burdens.

Patrick McFadden: Well, I think that that is what people call a stretch, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need effective scrutiny procedures. If hon. Members allow me to proceed with my remarks, I shall set out how those scrutiny procedures will operate.
	Government amendments Nos. 46 to 55 fulfil a commitment made in Standing Committee to provide parliamentary Committees in both Houses with a statutory power to veto orders. Noting concerns about the procedural safeguards in the Bill, Government amendments provide that Committees can veto orders under any procedure; negative, affirmative and super-affirmative.
	I want to stress at the outset the important point that the Government have given careful consideration to the form that the promised veto should take. We have sought to listen and to respond to views on the issue raised during the passage of the Bill, including those of the Select Committees, most of the Chairmen of which have spoken, and we hope to continue that dialogue. I assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to listen to views on the most appropriate way to ensure that the safeguards in the Bill are effective and workable.
	As has been said, the veto is not a blanket veto. Committees will, of course, be able to oppose an order on any basis that they choose, which is the case under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Several hon. Members have asked me to clarify that matter, and I reiterate the Government's commitment not to push through orders in the face of Committee opposition. I must add that the Government have always adhered to that commitment in the operation of the 2001 Act.

David Heath: The Minister has said that the Committee can reflect on any matter in reaching its recommendation. Government amendment No. 46 states that
	A recommendation may be made under subsection (2B) only if the committee considers
	the criteria. How can that mean anything?

Patrick McFadden: The statutory veto relates to the powers set out in the Bill. If it were operated, it would mean that the order could not continue to be made by the Minister. However, it would not constrain the Committee from opposing the order on other grounds, in which case the legal consequences would not be triggered and the Minister would seek to adhere to the terms of the undertaking. The statutory veto relates to the powers in the clauses that we discussed yesterday, but the Committee can express a view in other terms, should it wish to do so.

Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister explain the logic of that proposition? He rightly accepts that the Select Committee will be totally unconstrained when it comes to considering the merits of an order, so if it wants to vote against an order or express a view, it can consider anything it likes. When it comes to what procedure should be followed, however, the Select Committee would be tightly constrained by the terms of the statute. What on earth is the point of allowing the Select Committee full discretion on debating the merits of an order, but to confine it so closely on the procedural point of cutting out parliamentary debate? There could be orders that the Select Committee is against, but on which it approves of the procedure, and there could be ones of which it is in favour, but on which it thinks that there should be full procedure, because it knows that many other hon. Members want to consider the matter. Why distinguish between the two?

Patrick McFadden: The position is symmetrical because the statutory veto relates to the powers in the Bill, which is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in her intervention on the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. We were asked to introduce a statutory veto, but we were also asked to narrow the powers in the Bill. The Government amendments include a statutory veto, which relates to the narrowing of the powers in the Bill that the House agreed yesterday.
	In the context of amendments to focus the order-making power more explicitly on better regulation objectives, it was considered appropriate for the veto to provide a symmetrical and focused check on that power. The Government consider it right that proposals are judged on the extent to which they deliver the regulatory reform agenda, and it is right that the proposals are judged on whether the conditions in the Bill are met.
	First and foremost, the veto is intended to present an effective and workable mechanism to protect against the abuse of the order-making power in the Bill. To that end, the veto builds directly upon the strengths of the existing system for scrutinising orders. The conditions to which the veto is tied are consistent with those contained in the Standing Orders of relevant Committees under the 2001 Act, conditions against which Committees have previously tested and, in one case, rejected regulatory reform orders. The Government believe that those conditions continue to represent key indicators on whether a proposal is suitable for delivery by order.
	Additionally, the veto addresses concerns surrounding a Minister's capacity to implement Law Commission recommendations with changes, which has raised questions about the extent to which a recommendation can legitimately be altered when it is delivered by order. In a case in which a Committee judges a recommendation to have been changed to such a degree that the recommendation can no longer be seen to implement a recommendation of the Law Commission, the Committee can exercise the statutory veto. As has been noted, however, the Government acknowledge the need for continued discussion about the most appropriate way in which to take forward the provision of a veto for Committees, which is a delicate issue. As was said yesterday, one of the reasons why the Bill is delicate is that it touches not only on what the Executive may want to do, but on the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, which is why we are open to continued discussion on those matters.

Andrew Miller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone that he is adopting and think that further discussion is necessary. Will he ensure that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) is covered in that discussion? It would be unacceptable to the House and, indeed, to the Executive if we were to end up in a position in which the work of a Select Committee could be subject to judicial review.

Patrick McFadden: I am happy to take that point on board in the ongoing discussions, in which I hope that the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee will be an active participant.
	A number of the Opposition amendments to new clauses 5, 6 and 14 and to Government amendments Nos. 46, 50 and 54 explore alternative arrangements for the veto. I hope that hon. Members will consider the issues raised during the debate and the rationale for focusing the veto on the powers and conditions in the Bill. I also hope that they are assured of our intention to continue to engage with Parliament on that issue.
	Some of the amendments deal with the issue of where the responsibility for exercising the veto should lie. They specify that the Committee capable of using the veto should be one
	with responsibility for the matter.
	Presumably, the rationale behind the amendments is to open the issue of changes to the structure of Committee scrutiny of orders. For instance, the amendments would allow separate Committees to perform procedural matters and the task of reporting on the substance of a draft order. It seems appropriate for the scrutiny of orders to be performed by a single Committee, which would make best use of the understanding of an order built up by a Committee. The Government have assumed that the Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Commons and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place will continue to perform those roles, but I stress that those matters are for the House and that, in principle, there would be no objection to other Committees with expert knowledge being involved in the scrutiny of draft orders.
	As hon. Members know, it has been agreed to expand the remit of the Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government expect it to be appropriate for Standing Orders to reflect the potential need for the Committee to seek expert views from other Committees on particularly complex orders. As noted, that is ultimately an issue for Parliament to decide.
	Hon. Members have also tabled amendments that would remove provision for the House to overturn a veto exercised by its responsible Committee. To provide that a Committee decision could override the opinion of the House would be an unprecedented step that ultimately could be unworkable in practice. In new clause 14, however, hon. Members suggest a mechanism for the House of Commons to exercise a veto, whereby if a certain percentage of MPs objected to an order in writing, that order would have to be withdrawn. That percentage is set at 10 per cent.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that the procedural safeguards in the Bill are robust and effective. However, the amendments would create a somewhat arbitrary arrangement which, crucially, does not build on the strength of the existing system for scrutinising ordersnamely, the detailed scrutiny given to orders by the specialist Committees. In any case, under the affirmative and super-affirmative procedure, a proposal must, following Committee scrutiny, pass to the House for affirmative resolution. Some hon. Members suggested that the House is excluded from these matters, but that is wide of the mark.
	There was then a discussion on proposals for a two-year rule whereby once an order had been vetoed a Minister could not table a similar order for the next two years. I understand the reasoning behind those amendments. They seek to ensure that a veto system cannot be abused by a future Government, a point with which I have considerable sympathy, and which ultimately constitutes the rationale for Government amendments to introduce a veto into the Bill. However, we would want to avoid imposing an arbitrary restriction on the order-making process, and I am concerned that the amendments may do precisely that.
	New clause 6 proposes that where either House decides within 21 days that an order is inappropriate for delivery under the order-making power, it should be the subject matter of primary legislation. That arrangement could be difficult to operate. The Cabinet Committee on the Legislative Programme takes decisions each year on which proposals the Government will take forward by primary legislation. As provided for in clause 12, the explanatory document will describe to Parliament why a proposal is suitable for delivery by order. The legislative programme is carefully planned, and adequate resources need to be in place to take forward a Bill. A procedure such as this, whereby an order could suddenly be translated into primary legislation, could cause unmanageable uncertainty and potentially create a very overcrowded legislative programme. I hope that hon. Members accept that we could not support such an amendment.
	The Government recognisethis was touched uponthat there are issues surrounding the level of procedural detail that should be contained in statute and in Standing Orders. The Procedure Committee, for instance, has recommended that as far as possible the procedural requirements for scrutiny of orders should be left to House authorities. I have provided assurance that the Government will continue a dialogue with the Chairs of the relevant Committees about appropriate changes to Standing Orders, and I have confirmed, and am happy to confirm again, my intention to listen to views on this issue.
	Our priority is to get the Bill right, to have a workable system of scrutiny, and to achieve the right balance between creating a power that is able to deliver the regulatory reform agenda and ensuring that effective and robust safeguards are in place. The veto clearly plays an important role in achieving that balance. The Government are confident that in the veto provided we have the substantial and workable safeguard that Committees have requested. However, we will continue to listen to views on the most appropriate form that the veto should take, both during the passage of the Bill and in relation to amendments to Standing Orders once the Bill has been passed.

Roger Gale: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the Minister had sat down, and I think that my interpretation was correct. I call Mr. Jonathan Djanogly.

Jonathan Djanogly: We have heard many significant concerns voiced by Members from all parties. We do not like the way in which the Bill is being taken through this House, and we do not like much of what it is in it, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, we are putting up with it for the sake of deregulation.
	It is somewhat bizarre to hear the Minister suggest that the wider veto is somehow related to there being narrower powers. We say that there must be safeguards and that there are not enough safeguards in the Bill as it stands, not least as regards the promised veto, which turns out in practice not to be a veto. I hear the Minister's offer of further consultation; we shall see. In the meantime, we had expected that a full and restrictive veto should be given to Select Committees, and we still expect that. On that basis, I intend to ask the House to divide on new clause 5.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 256.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 14
	  
	Veto by specified number of Members of House of Commons

'No order may be made under Part 1 where both of the following conditions have been fulfilled
	(a) within the period defined in section 13(7), more than 10 per cent. of the members of the House of Commons have signified to the Speaker in writing that they object to the use of the Act for purpose of introducing the order in question, and
	(b) the members referred to in subsection (1) above are not all members of the same party.'.  [Mr. Heath.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 259.

Question accordingly negatived.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to detain the House, but during the debate on the last group of amendments, I am fairly certain that I understood the Minister to respond to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) by saying that it would be regrettable if a Select Committee were referred for judicial review. That is on the record. However, it is my understanding that Select Committees and the whole House are the subjects and beneficiaries of parliamentary privilege and could not be referred for judicial review. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, either rule on it now or, if necessary, look further into it so that either you orMr. Speaker can make a ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member, who is an experienced Member of the House, knows that, strictly speaking, that is not a point of order for the Chair. It would draw the Chair into a matter that arose during a debate. Equally, he is experienced enough to know that, under the device of making a point of order, he has put his point on the record and we shall no doubt be able to resolve it and gain complete clarification in the course of the debate.

New Clause 15
	  
	Sub-delegated legislative functions

'(1) Where, by an order under this part, the function of legislating has been conferred on a person, any legislation that person makes must be made by statutory instrument.
	(2) The procedures specified in section 10 and section [Veto by specified number of Members of House of Commons] shall apply to any legislation made by any person on whom the power to legislate has been conferred under this part.
	(3) Any person on whom the power to legislate has been conferred under this part shall be subject to the same duties to consult before exercising that power as those to which a minister of the Crown is subject under section 11.
	(4) Legislation made by a person on whom the function of legislating has been conferred under this part
	(a) may not delegate further any power to legislate,
	(b) may only be made for purposes for which orders under this part may themselves be made, and
	(c) is subject to the same restrictions as orders under this part.'.  [Mr. Heath.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 16 [Clause 2], leave out '(functions of legislating or'.
	No. 9, in page 2, line 21 [Clause 2], at end insert
	'(2A) Provision made under subsection (2)(a) may only confer functions relating to the functions of legislation subject to the provisions of section (sub-delegated legislative functions).
	No. 7, in page 3, line 13 [Clause 4], leave out from 'on' to 'unless' in line 14 and insert 'any person'.
	No. 8, in page 3, line 23 [Clause 4], at end add
	'(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to
	(a) provision conferring a function of regulating a profession on a body elected by members of the profession;
	(b) provision conferring a function of regulating a trade on a body elected by members of the trade;
	(c) provision conferring on a local authority, within the meaning of section 1 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22), the function of legislating with respect to its area; or
	(d) other provision specified by order made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(6) An order under subsection (5)(d) must be made by statutory instrument.
	(7) A Minister of the Crown may not make a statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (5)(d) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

David Heath: The matter of the implied repeal of the Bill of Rights is of some consequence, and I think that it may well be a matter for the Chair or, indeed,Mr. Speaker, to protect the rights of the House, but that is not what new clause 15 is about. The new clause deals with the capacity conferred by the Bill to delegate the function of legislation. It is, at first sight, a rather extraordinary conceptthe idea that Ministers might, by Order in Council, confer to any other person the function of legislating. Of course, delegated functions already occur through primary legislation in a number of cases, but when we asked Ministersin Committee and elsewhereexactly what they meant by the provision in the Bill, I have to say that the answers were less than convincing and less than adequate. There is no clear idea of why there is a need for Ministers to defer through an Order in Council what is the most important aspect of Parliament's workthe legislative functionto any other person. There is, I accept, an argument for allowing the function of levying fees or changing a fees regime to be delegated to another person, which is why we have framed our new clause in a different way from the amendment that we tabled in Committee, and why it does not deal with that issue.
	We would have liked a full debate on this subject yesterday in the context of new clause 19, but as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our procedure yesterday did not entirely allow for that. The new provision was originally in clause 2, but now lies in new clause 19 and the subsequent new clauses. We would have liked at that point to move amendments reducing the capacity to delegate the function of legislating, and to have divided the House on them.
	Two things alarm us. First, we have to ask whether it is right to give, through secondary legislation, the legislative function to another personwhomsoever that may bewho is not a legislator; not a Member of this Parliament. The second and most relevant question is that even if one accepts the need to delegate the legislative functionwhich I do notwhy on earth is the legislation that such a person can then create via the delegated power not subject to the same caveats to which the Minister who conferred that delegated function is subject? Why, moreover, is such legislation not subject to the same parliamentary protectionsalbeit inadequate, as we have just been debatingto which it would have been subject, had it been put through the House via secondary legislation?
	The case is absolutely unanswerable. I am prepared to listen to arguments from the Minister on the need to delegate a legislative function, although I am still at a loss to know in exactly what circumstances such a power would be used. However, I will not accept, under any circumstances, that such a power should not be subject to the same restrictions, caveats and the so-called veto that we have applied to matters properly before legislators: in other words, Members of this House acting in a legislative capacity in a Select Committee or in a Statutory Instrument Committee.
	The suggestion is entirely preposterous. I know that we sometimes seem to defer our legislative functions to all sorts of people, but at least we try to maintain the fig leaf whereby we legislate in this House on the basis of information that we have. Ministers will be allowed to wash their hands completely of legislation that is the product of this provision. They will not be interested in whether it complies with the regulatory principles or falls within the narrow constraints on Ministers' ability to delegate through such means, which we have just been discussing.
	We must remember that we are talking about amendment to primary legislation. Primary legislation will go through all its parliamentary stages and, a few years later, a Minister will be able to say, I'm going to amend this legislation, but I'm not going to tell you how. I'm going to delegate that function to another person whom the House does not know and whose capacity they do not know, in order that they can make amendments that the House does not know about, and which will never go back to the House for corroboration or scrutiny.
	I do not think that that is the way that the House should do its business. It is an error of judgment. I know that the Minister will say, It's nothing to worry about. We're only talking about a few learned bodies and things like that, and they must be allowed to make their own rules, but I do worry about itthat is my job. It is the job of all hon. Members to worry about whether we allow other people to make legislation on our behalf without the appropriate restrictions.
	The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee, also has amendments in this group. From his body language, it is clear that he shares some of our concerns and that he is itching to speak. Given the abbreviated time available I shall not delay the House, save to say that amendments Nos. 5 and 9 fall, as they apply to something that yesterday was deleted from the Bill by a decision of the House. However, new clause 15 is still relevant as it sets out the principles that should apply in this matter and would restrict the capacity to delegate the legislative function.
	I hope that we will get satisfactory answers from the Minister, but I expect that he will not be able to satisfy my concerns as he has not put forward his own amendments to bring the delegated legislative function within the compass of his constraints. It is likely that I shall wish to divide the House, but I hope to get some support from other parties.
	Conservative Members who share my concerns may feel put off because the new clause refers to the veto. They were unable to support that proposal earlier, but it has now been disposed of. This is an important issue and we must send the clearest possible message to the other place that it requires appropriate amendment. For members of the principal Opposition party to sit on their hands in respect of such an important matter would be extremely unhelpful, and I entreat them to show their support in the Lobbies, whatever their reservations about one small aspect of the new clause.

Andrew Miller: In view of the time, I shall be extremely brief. I wish to move the two amendments in my name, which fill the gap

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have to move his amendments, but merely speak to the group.

Andrew Miller: Amendment No. 7 would change the default position and ensure that the positive and negative procedures that apply to Ministers would also apply to any grantee of the power to legislate, unless an exception applied as set out in amendment No. 8.
	I shall give the House practical examples of how that would work. The North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee is made up of local authority appointees and others, including lay persons. It has been involved in long and complicated machinations about illegal cockle fishing on the Dee estuary with the Environment Agency Wales. A regulating order has been passed, but it needed the authority of the EAW and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It would be intolerable if such a body could regulate on its own. I do not believe that that was the Minister's intention, or that of his predecessor, in drafting the order and my amendments are merely intended to help to resolve the situation. I could give further examples, but in view of the time and the fact that it is essential that we hear from the Minister on this important point, I shall conclude my remarks.

Oliver Heald: The original Bill attracted widespread criticism because it allowed such wide sub-delegation. Throughout our proceedings, the Opposition and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats, have tried to frame amendments in a way that might lure the Minister into accepting them. We did not get far in Committee, but things are going a bit better now, so I hope that the Minister might at least give us some assurances about later stages of the Bill in the other place.
	I accept that there could be one sub-delegation to achieve the mergers that we were talking about yesterday in respect of the Hampton review, where it might be necessary to allow sub-delegation to a regulatora point that I discussed with the Minister's predecessor in Committee. However, to allow the possibility for continuous, chain sub-delegation, whereby there is sub-delegation to one person who has the power to make secondary legislation, including the power to sub-delegate again, and so on, is a bit muchor a lot too much. New clause 15 is aimed at that situation. I support the idea that there should be a limit to the amount of sub-delegationthe length of the chain.
	The point that there should be proper consultation before the use of secondary legislation for such purposes is well taken, so although, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly pointed out, I have reservations about subsection (2) of the new clause, given that the House did not vote for the provision that a veto by a specified number of Members of the House should be added to the Bill, I do not feel constrained by that technical point in supporting the new clause. We certainly support the new clause and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to it.

Patrick McFadden: I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) accede to the case for sub-delegation in some circumstances. The question before us is twofold. New clause 15 suggests that those to whom powers are sub-delegated should be subject to the same parliamentary processes as a Minister making an order. Powers to legislate are already exercised by entities other than Ministers in situations where statutory instruments are not always appropriatefor example, there are local authority powers to make byelaws that are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, but instead have to be authorised by the Secretary of State and must have set model procedures. The conditions set out in the new clause would not cater for those powers and as a result would require extensive public consultation and parliamentary time when that would often be inappropriate or unnecessary.

David Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick McFadden: Given the time available, I would rather make some progress.
	When making an order that confers a power to legislate, the nature of that power will be considered on a case-by-case basis and the order will set out the appropriate procedural requirements, depending on whom the power is conferred and its subject matter. That is the best approach, rather than being too rigid.
	In our short debate, there was a question about whether someone could sell on the power sub-delegated to them. No, they would not be able to do so.

Mark Fisher: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I should like to press on.
	Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), do not suggest that sub-delegation should not happen. He attempts to produce a list that defines to whom the phrase any person might apply. As with his contributions throughout these debates, there is much sense in what he suggests. There are various instances in which powers to legislate are exercised by bodies other than Ministers, and he has attempted to define some of them in amendment No. 8 and in his contribution. We do not propose to accept those amendments tonight, but I can tell him that the effort to define the term any person more clearly is something that we hope to reflect on, consider and return to, as the Bill makes progress in another place.

Mark Fisher: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way to the hon. Gentleman?

Patrick McFadden: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has concluded his speech.

Mark Fisher: Instead of intervening on the Minister, perhaps I can make one of the shortest speeches on record.
	Will the Minister explain his assertion that the Bill does not allow the right to sell on legislation, to use his words? Perhaps he can point to where that is specified in the Bill.

David Howarth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as doing so probably spoils his effort to make the shortest speech of the evening, but I should like to encourage him in his question. If the provision in the Bill that sub-delegates the power to legislate in the first place were to include the possibility of further sub-delegation, and that was part of the original order, there is no reason to believe that further selling on of the power to legislate should be excluded.

Mark Fisher: That is a fair point, but it does not address my point about where that is dealt with in the Bill. The whole House has been enormously impressed by the way that the Minister, having picked up this brief only about three days ago, has mastered the intricacies and nuances of a very difficult and incredibly important Bill that goes to the very heart of our parliamentary democracy. The House has noted the Minister's grasp of the issue and is very impressed by it

Rob Marris: But.

Mark Fisher: Not butand I have spent some time reading the Bill and perhaps I have missed it, but I cannot see where the power not to sell on, in the Minister's words, is specified in the Bill.

Patrick McFadden: I advise my hon. Friend to read paragraph 31 of the volume of Halsbury's Laws on administrative law and Bennion on statutory interpretation, where he will find the well-established legal principle that a statutory power must be exercised only by the person to whom it is given and that it cannot be sub-delegated to someone else, unless that it authorised.

David Howarth: That is the exactly the pointunless it is authorised.

Mark Fisher: The point is very well made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). The provision is qualified by the phrase unless it is authorised. The House will be delighted by the parliamentary footnote. As someone who loves footnotes in books, I thought that the Minister's Halsbury footnote was a delight, but I hope that he will address the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Patrick McFadden: Perhaps I can help the House further. In the case of our Bill, explicit wording would be needed to authorise further delegation of legislative powers. Given that the Bill does not contain such provision, such further delegation would not be possible. The Bill does not say so in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mark Fisher: I hope that the Minister is right, but it is very worrying that this is a fundamental parliamentary principle and we have moments before the knife falls on the debate. There is no point in discussing that, but such things should not just be rubbed through like that and the House and the other place must return to these things not in a gabbled way under the edge of a knife falling on the debate, but in a serious way. I am sure that the Minister intends to justify the position, and I hope that he can do so with his mastery of the footnote. However, as things stand, I am more persuaded by what the hon. Member for Cambridge said from a sedentary position. He feels that there are problems. These matters are too serious to buff through.

John Hemming: The key point is that if there is a statutory instrument or order under the Bill that enables sub-delegation, sub-delegation can ensue. Only if the original Bill contained a provision saying that there could not be sub-delegation would that be, subject to judicial review, ultra vires. That is what we are asking for.

Mark Fisher: I am afraid that these issues are too nicein the true sense of the wordto tease out in three and a half minutes, but they are very important and we are going to have to come back to them. We cannot allow this legislation finally to pass on to the statute book without being clear about what we are doing. The Minister may be clear and he may well be right. He has earned the right to our confidence. He has shown that during the debate today and yesterday. However, we cannot afford to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has to justify that to the House. We have to be extremely careful about what sub-delegation we are making.

Rob Marris: In terms of what the Minister said in response to amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), can the Minister assure meI was not clear from what he saidthat he was minded to accept the spirit, if not the wording, of those amendments?

David Heath: That was a short, but informative debate. I agree that the Minister has been doing a good job in rather disadvantageous conditions over the past two days. I hope that next time he comes before the House with a Bill, he has a better Bill to work with. His officials are rather over-reliant on interpretations from Halsbury and insufficiently prepared to look at the common sense of what is written in the statute. Quite clearly there is no exclusion in the statute in relation to sub-delegationa quite proper matter for the House's concern.
	The idea that the requirements on consultation, which are contained in clause 11, are an unsatisfactorily onerous duty for somebody who is legislating under a delegated function is quite wrong. If someone is making legislation that is binding on other peopleeven if it is only a few peopleis it entirely improper that they should consult such organisations as appear to them
	to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposals?
	I would suggest not. It is proper for delegated functions of legislation to fall within exactly the same constraints and to have exactly the same terms of consultation and procedures as any other matter handled under the accelerated procedure.
	We still have some very big question marksnotwithstanding the Minister's preparedness to talk to the Committee and perhaps bring forward further proposals at the next stage of the consideration of the Bill in another place. Who knows, he may bring forward things that are of interest at that point, but that will not happen before this House today and, on that basis, we must seek the advice of the House, and I will press new clause 15 to a vote.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that parts 2 and 3 of this very important Bill will remain unscrutinised on Report and that that disgraceful state of affairs arises only because of the terms of the Government's own guillotine motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm only that it begins to look extremely improbable that the other parts of the Bill are going to receive consideration.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 259.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being after Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [15 May].

New Clause 17
	  
	DISAPPLICATION OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 (NO. 2)

'(1) An order made under Part 1 containing provision relating to Community treaties, Community instruments or Community obligations shall, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, be binding in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom.
	(2) In section 1 and this section
	Community instruments and Community obligations have the same meaning as in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68);
	Community treaties has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.'.  [Mr. Cash.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	  
	Purpose

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 1, line 4, leave out Clause 1. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 2
	  
	Provision

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 2, line 10, leave out Clause 2. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 3
	  
	Preconditions

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 2, line 32 [Clause 3], leave out from 'make' to end of line 35 and insert
	'provision under section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(1), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(1) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(1)'.
	No. 13, in page 3, line 3 [Clause 3], at end insert
	'(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to
	(a) provision under section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(1), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(1) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(1) which merely restates an enactment; or
	(b) provision under section (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(1) which codifies a rule of law.'.
	No. 14, in page 3, line 4 [Clause 3], leave out from 'make' to end of line 6 and insert
	'(a) provision under section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(1), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(1) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(1) which merely restates an enactment, or
	(b) provision under section (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(1) which codifies a rule of law,'.  [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 4
	  
	Subordinate legislation

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 3, line 13 [Clause 4], leave out from beginning to 'confer' and insert
	'An order under this Part may not make provision to'
	.
	No. 16, in page 3, line 23 [Clause 4], leave out 'legislation' and insert 'an enactment'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 5
	  
	Taxation

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 3, line 25 [Clause 5], leave out from beginning to 'impose' and insert
	'An order under this Part may not make provision to'.
	No. 18, in page 3, line 26 [Clause 5], leave out 'legislation' and insert 'an enactment'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 6
	  
	Criminal penalties

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 3, line 28 [Clause 6], leave out from beginning to 'create' and insert
	'An order under this Part may not make provision to'.
	No. 20, in page 4, line 9 [Clause 6], leave out section 2(1) and insert 'this Part making provision'.
	No. 21, in page 4, line 15 [Clause 6], leave out section 2(1) and insert 'this Part making provision'.
	No. 22, in page 4, line 22 [Clause 6], leave out 'legislation' and insert 'an enactment'.
	No. 23, in page 4, line 23 [Clause 6], leave out paragraph (b). [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 7
	  
	Forcible entry etc

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 4 [Clause 7], leave out line 26 and insert
	'An order under this Part may not make provision to'.
	No. 25, in page 4, line 29 [Clause 7], leave out 'section 1' and insert 'this Part'.
	No. 26, in page 4, line 33 [Clause 7], leave out 'legislation' and insert 'an enactment'.
	No. 27, in page 4, line 34 [Clause 7], leave out paragraph (b).  [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 8
	  
	Scotland

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 4, line 38 [Clause 8], leave out from 'under' to 'make' and insert
	'this Part may not, except by virtue of section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(8), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(5) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(5),' [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 9
	  
	Wales

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 4, line 42 [Clause 9], leave out 'section 1' and insert 'this Part'.  [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 10
	  
	Procedure: introductory

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 5, line 7 [Clause 10], leave out 'section 1' and insert 'this Part'.
	No. 31, in page 5, line 8 [Clause 10], leave out 'section 1' and insert 'this Part'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 11
	  
	Consultation

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 5, line 18 [Clause 11], leave out 'section 1' and insert 'this Part'.
	No. 33, in page 5, line 28 [Clause 11], leave out paragraph (d) and insert
	'(d) in the case of an order made under section (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations), consult the Commission or Commissions whose recommendation or recommendations he is proposing to implement, and'.
	No. 34, in page 5, line 33 [Clause 11], leave out 'section 1' and insert
	'section (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)'.
	No. 35, in page 6, line 4 [Clause 11], leave out 'section 1' and insert 'this Part'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 12
	  
	Draft order and explanatory document laid before Parliament

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 6, line 17 [Clause 12], leave out 'section 1' and insert 'this Part'.
	No. 37, in page 6, line 22 [Clause 12], leave out from 'explain' to end of line 23 and insert
	'under which power or powers in this Part the provision contained in the order is made'.
	No. 38, in page 6, line 28 [Clause 12], leave out paragraph (d) and insert
	'(d) in the case of an order under section (Power to remove or reduce burdens), include, so far as appropriate, an assessment of the extent to which the provision made by the order would remove or reduce any burden or burdens (within the meaning of subsection (2) of that section);'.
	No. 39, in page 6, line 40 [Clause 12], leave out subsection (3).
	No. 40, in page 7, line 1 [Clause 12], leave out from 'of' to 'the' in line 2 and insert
	'an order under section (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)'.  [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 13
	  
	Determination of Parliamentary procedure

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 7, line 34 [Clause 13], leave out '21-day' and insert '30-day'.
	No. 42, in page 7, line 43 [Clause 13], leave out '21-day' and insert '30-day'.
	No. 43, in page 8, line 4 [Clause 13], leave out '21-day' and insert '30-day'.
	No. 44, in page 8, line 11 [Clause 13], leave out '21-day' and insert '30-day'.
	No. 45, in page 8, line 11 [Clause 13], leave out '21' and insert '30'.  [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 14
	  
	Negative Resolution Procedure

Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 8, line 17 [Clause 14], leave out subsection (2) and insert
	'(2) The Minister may make an order in the terms of the draft order subject to the following provisions of this section.
	(2A) The Minister may not make an order in the terms of the draft order if either House of Parliament so resolves within the 40-day period.
	(2B) A committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(2C) A recommendation may be made under subsection (2B) only if the committee considers that
	(a) the provision made by the draft order does not serve the purpose specified in section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(2), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(2) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(2) (as the case may be);
	(b) any relevant condition in section 3(2) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(1); or
	(c) the condition in section 3(4) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(3).
	(2D) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (2B) in relation to a draft order, the Minister may not make an order in the terms of the draft order unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.' [Mr. McFadden.]
	 Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), in line 5, leave out from 'with' to end of line 18 and insert
	'responsibility for this matter may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.'. [Mr. Greg Knight.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 258.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment agreed to.
	 Amendments made: No. 47, in page 8, line 20 [Clause 14], leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'this section'.
	No. 48, in page 8, line 22, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'this section
	(a) the 30-day period has the meaning given by section 13(7); and
	(b) '.
	No. 49, in page 8, line 24, at end insert
	'(5) For the purpose of calculating the 40-day period in a case where a recommendation is made under subsection (2B) by a committee of either House but the recommendation is rejected by that House under subsection (2D), no account shall be taken of any day between the day on which the recommendation was made and the day on which the recommendation was rejected.'.  [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 15
	  
	Affirmative resolution procedure

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 8, line 31 [Clause 15], at end insert
	'(2A) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(2B) A recommendation under subsection (2A) may be made only if the committee considers that
	(a) the provision made by the draft order does not serve the purpose specified in section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(2), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(2) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(2) (as the case may be);
	(b) any relevant condition in section 3(2) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(1); or
	(c) the condition in section 3(4) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(3).
	(2C) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (2A) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under subsection (2) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.'.
	No. 51, in page 8, line 34, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'this section
	(a) the 30-day period has the meaning given by section 13(7); and
	(b) '.
	No. 52, in page 8, line 34, at end insert
	'(5) For the purpose of calculating the 40-day period in a case where a recommendation is made under subsection (2A) by a committee of either House but the recommendation is rejected by that House under subsection (2C), no account shall be taken of any day between the day on which the recommendation was made and the day on which the recommendation was rejected.'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 16
	  
	Super-affirmative resolution procedure

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 9, line 5 [Clause 16], leave out from 'statement' to end of line 6 and insert
	'(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (2)(a); and
	(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.'.
	No. 54, in page 9, line 8, after subsection (4) insert
	'(4A) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the draft order is approved by that House under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(4B) A recommendation under subsection (4A) may be made only if the committee considers that
	(a) the provision made by the draft order does not serve the purpose specified in section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(2), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(2) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(2) (as the case may be);
	(b) any relevant condition in section 3(2) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(1); or
	(c) the condition in section 3(4) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(3).
	(4C) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (4A) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.'.
	No. 55, in page 9, line 18 [Clause 16], after subsection (6) insert
	'(6A) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft order may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under subsection (5) and before it is approved by that House under subsection (6), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.
	(6B) A recommendation under subsection (6A) may be made only if the committee considers that
	(a) the provision made by the revised draft order does not serve the purpose specified in section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(2), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(2) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(2) (as the case may be);
	(b) any relevant condition in section 3(2) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the revised draft order referred to in section 3(1); or
	(c) the condition in section 3(4) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the revised draft order referred to in section 3(3).
	(6C) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6A) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft order in that House under subsection (6) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 18
	  
	Combination with powers under European Communities Act 1972

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 9, line 30 [Clause 18], leave out 'section 1' and insert 'this Part'.
	No. 57, in page 9, line 35 [Clause 18], leave out 'section 1' and insert 'this Part'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 19
	  
	Interpretation of Part 1

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 9 [Clause 19], leave out line 40.
	No. 59, in page 10, line 7 [Clause 19], leave out 'section 1(4)' and insert
	'section (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(3)'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 21
	  
	Code of practice

Amendments made: No. 82, in page 10, line 24 [Clause 21], after 'must' insert
	', except in a case where subsection (2A) applies,'.
	No. 83, in page 10, line 25 [Clause 21], leave out 'the exercise of' and insert
	'determining any general policy or principles by reference to which the person exercises'.
	No. 84, in page 10, line 25 [Clause 21], at end insert
	'(2A) Any person exercising a regulatory function to which this section applies which is a function of setting standards or giving guidance generally in relation to the exercise of other regulatory functions must have regard to the code in the exercise of the function.'.
	No. 85, in page 10, line 26 [Clause 21], leave out
	'duty in subsection (2) is'
	and insert
	'duties in subsections (2) and (2A) are'.
	No. 86, in page 10, line 28 [Clause 21], leave out subsection (4). [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 22
	  
	Code of practice: procedure

Amendment made: No. 87, in page 11, line 9 [Clause 22], leave out subsections (5) to (7) and insert
	'(4A) Where the draft laid before Parliament under subsection (4) is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Minister may issue the code (or revised code).
	(4B) A code (or revised code) issued under subsection (4A) shall come into force on such date as the Minister may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 24
	  
	Regulatory functions

Amendment made: No. 60, in page 12, line 17, leave out Clause 24. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 26
	  
	EEA agreement and EEA state

Amendment made: No. 88, in page 13, line 25 [Clause 26], leave out from beginning to '[The date' in line 26 and insert
	'modified or supplemented from time to time.'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 29
	  
	Combination of powers

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 16, line 16 [Clause 29], at the end insert
	'(aa) the instrument so far as containing that provision is by virtue of any enactment required to be laid before Parliament after being made and to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament in order to come into or remain in force;'.
	No. 90, in page 16, line 17 [Clause 29], after 'paragraph (a)' insert 'or (aa)'.
	No. 91, in page 16, line 20 [Clause 29], leave out from 'made' to the end of line 22.
	No. 92, in page 16, line 23 [Clause 29], after 'instrument' insert
	'or a draft of the instrument'.
	No. 93, in page 16, line 24 [Clause 29], after 'required' insert 'at any time'.
	No. 94, in page 16 [Clause 29], leave out line 25.
	No. 95, in page 16, line 35 [Clause 29], at end insert
	'(ba) in a case where the condition in sub-paragraph (2)(aa) above is satisfied, the instrument is not required to be laid before Parliament after being made (and accordingly any requirement that the instrument be approved by each House of Parliament in order for it to come into or remain in force does not apply); and'.
	No. 96, in page 17, line 13 [Clause 29], after 'instrument' insert
	'or a draft of the instrument'
	.
	No. 97, in page 17, line 14 [Clause 29], after 'required' insert 'at any time'.
	No. 98, in page 17 [Clause 29], leave out line 15.
	No. 99, in page 17, line 37 [Clause 29], leave out '10(2)' and insert '11'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 31
	  
	Consequential amendments

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 18, line 33 [Clause 31], leave out 'section 1' and insert
	'section (Power to remove or reduce burdens) or (Power to promote regulatory principles)'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 32
	  
	General interpretation

Amendment made: No. 62, in page 18, line 40 [Clause 32], at end insert
	'regulatory function means
	(a) a function under any enactment of imposing requirements, restrictions or conditions, or setting standards or giving guidance, in relation to any activity;
	(b) a function which relates to the securing of compliance with, or the enforcement of, requirements, restrictions, conditions, standards or guidance which under or by virtue of any enactment relate to any activity, but does not include any function of conducting criminal or civil proceedings.
	(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of regulatory function
	(a) the references to a function include a function exercisable by or on behalf of the Crown;
	(b) the references to an activity include
	(i) providing any goods or services;
	(ii) employing or offering employment to any person.'. [Mr. McFadden.]

Clause 34
	  
	Extent

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 19, line 2 [Clause 34], leave out from 'under' to the end of the line and insert
	'Part 1 which amends or repeals any enactment'.
	No. 64, in page 19, line 4 [Clause 34], leave out 'legislation' and insert 'enactment'. [Mr. McFadden.]
	Title
	 Amendment made: No. 65, in title, line 1, leave out 'reforming legislation' and insert
	'removing or reducing burdens resulting from legislation, promoting regulatory principles'. [Mr. McFadden.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Let me begin by thanking a number of colleagues and others in the House. First, I must thank my ministerial colleagues the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Cabinet Office. I am sorry that one of them did not have a chance to demonstrate his skilful mastery of his brief, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden) demonstrated effectively his ability to master a complicated brief in a very short time. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), for her expertise in dealing with the Law Commission aspect of the Bill. I also thankmy hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire(Mr. Murphy), who is now Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, but who did so much of the work that produced the Bill in the form in which it has been debated over the past two days.
	I am grateful for the constructive advice given by a number of key Committees and their Chairs during the last few months on how best to frame the order-making powers in part 1, and on the parliamentary procedures for scrutiny of draft orders. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
	We have engaged in a lively and interesting debate over the past two days. Despite all the votes, I believe that there has been an advance that most Members throughout the House have recognised. We have sought to achieve a sensible balance between producing a Bill with the power to deliver better regulationin which respect I confess we were ambitiousand ensuring that Parliament would play a full and constructive role in scrutinising proposals so that we could secure a better regulation agenda overall.

John Redwood: Well over a year ago, before the election, the Prime Minister made a fine speech about the importance of deregulation to his Government's plans. What will the Minister deregulate once the Bill has been passed?

Hilary Armstrong: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill is only part of the Government's wide-ranging deregulation agenda. I look forward to working with him on a raft of measures in the public and private sectors to bring about much more effective operation. Perhaps he would like to share some of his ideas with me.

John Redwood: rose

Hilary Armstrong: Not tonight. We have plenty of time, and I want to allow others to contribute to this debate.
	I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not present earlier, but as was said a number of times today, the Bill does not stand in isolation, nor can we allow ourselves to consider it in a narrow way. It is part of a much wider Government agenda for cutting red tape in the public sector, businesses, charities and the voluntary sector. As part of that wide agenda, the Government are measuring the cost of all administrative burdens. The outcome of that work, and the concerted push across Departments for better regulation, will be reflected in concrete simplification plans from each Department which will be published this year. Attentive Members will be aware that that was announced in the Budget.
	The challenge for the United Kingdom and all western countries is to drive up productivity and maintain competitiveness in the face of rising global competition. Essential to meeting that challenge is a regulatory regime that satisfies the needs of the public while imposing the smallest possible extra burden on businesses.

Patrick Cormack: This rhetoric is music to my ears, but may we hear just one example from the right hon. Ladywhom I greatly admireof what the country will be rid of as a result of the Bill?

Hilary Armstrong: One idea that I have spent some time on, and which I will look at again in much more detail when I do not have to spend so much time on complex legislation such as this, is bringing inspectorates together. That will ease the burden on a range of public sector organisations and enhance the impact of these measures on the citizen.
	Essential to meeting the challenge to which I referred earlier is a regulatory regime that meets the needs of the public, while adding the lowest possible burden to businesses. Let us think for a moment about that challenge. Today, Asia's manufacturing output is greater than Europe's. Its share of world consumption has risen from some 10 per cent. to nearly 30 per cent. in the past 20 years. In the next five years, China's economy will overtake Germany's, which is now the EU's largest economy. China's exports to the EU have grown by 100 per cent. in just the past three years. China and India are now turning out more engineers, computer scientists and university graduates4 million a yearthan the EU and the USA combined. As we all know, the gap in productivity and competitiveness between the USA and the EU is widening, not narrowing in the way that it should.

Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Hilary Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are many potential gains that we can deliver if we maintain this agenda. Regulatory costs are estimated to be between 10 and 12 per cent. of gross domestic product, and the administrative and paperwork costs make up perhaps a third of that figure. As for measuring the administrative costs of regulation, as we are now doing on an even more ambitious scale, the Dutch Government discovered that they were 3.6 per cent. of GDP.

Christopher Chope: rose

Hilary Armstrong: Reducing those costs by a quarter over five years, as the Dutch are doing, could save us up to 1 per cent. of GDP. That is exactly the sort of approach that we should seek to adopt.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Heald.

Oliver Heald: This Bill

Christopher Chope: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way to me, Mr. Speaker. You were obviously surprised by her generosity, but I am not. How is what she just said consistent with the concession that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden) made earlier today? He said that new clause 19 would enable overall burdens to be increased.

Hilary Armstrong: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we believe that, used properly, these provisions will reduce burdens. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East said, different sorts of burdens might arise.

Desmond Swayne: Bigger ones.

Hilary Armstrong: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will explain. Regulation itself is not a bad thing; it is the manner in which it is imposed that is the problem.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will deal with that point now.
	The Government's better regulation agenda is designed to reduce burdens without reducing the effectiveness of regulation or its outcomes, so we are not going to stop introducing new regulations when they are needed. The Government make no apologies for continuing to regulate to improve standards in public services, to promote competition, to ensure fairness at work, to help industry and to provide protection for consumers and the environment. Indeed, one of my right hon. Friends said to me earlier, I hope that we're not so against regulation that we're going to send children back to work up chimneys again. Of course we are not.
	The order-making powers in part 1 are intended to take their place among the number of mechanisms designed to turn the aims of better regulation into reality for the end user on the groundfor those in business who create wealth and jobs in our economy, and those in our public services, voluntary and charitable organisations who improve the lives of our citizens.
	The World Bank survey published in September 2005 rated the UK second in the EU and ninth in the world for best business conditions. That and other independent reports show that the UK is doing well, but as I have said, the challenge from global economic development is huge. We must ensure that the UK remains competitive.
	The order-making powers in part 1 will not be the appropriate or even the necessary mechanism for every better regulation initiative. In many instances, however, they will provide real tools, where appropriate, for Departments to pursue their ambitious plans for removing unnecessary regulatory burdens without having to fight for precious time on the Floor of this House.
	The order-making powers as defined by the amended Bill are more fit for purpose than the powers in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 have proved to be.

Edward Garnier: Will the Minister give way?

Hilary Armstrong: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I must make progress, as we are nearly out of time.
	In broad terms, that is because the rationale for using the better regulation powers will be outcome-focused on reducing costs or on removing obstacles to productivity, profitability or efficiency. They will not be limited by a very tight definition of legal burdensa matter that I know that the House has explored in some depth.
	The better regulation initiatives that this order-making power will allow us to deliver include the consolidation of legislation to make it easier to understand and work with, and the reduction or removal of administrative burdens such as form filling or requirements to give information. I am anxious to make progress, so I shall not list the initiatives' effect on many other matters covered in the debate over the past two days.

Edward Garnier: Will the Minister give way?

Hilary Armstrong: No. Other hon. Members who have been here all day want me to get on with my remarks so that they can make a contribution.
	We also need to enshrine it in statute that regulators, as defined and specified by order, must have regard to the statutory code of practice issued under this Bill. The concordat will be based on the Better Regulation Commission's five principles of good regulation. In the round, such initiatives should allow us to remove what business and others tell us time and again are unnecessary obstacles to their efficiency.
	I had intended to say quite a lot about parliamentary procedure, but again, I shall cut that down. We have had a good and full debate on that, and the Government have made it clear that although we want to find an approach that does not place too much emphasis on our perception of how Parliament should act, we do not want to avoid the responsibility that Ministers must face in terms of how they behave. We have sought to get the balance right. We have listened carefully to what the House has said, and I have no doubt that we shall return to the matter.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Hilary Armstrong: I am sorry, but I must get on.
	I want hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the UK stands its ground in an increasingly dynamic and competitive global economy, and that regulation does not prevent our public servants and voluntary workers from serving our citizens. This Bill will allow Government to do that by providing mechanisms to deliver real and meaningful cuts in red tape on business, charities and voluntary organisations.
	I want to leave hon. Members in no doubt that this Bill is needed. Business needs it, and is telling us so very loudly. Our dedicated public servants need it too, as do our hard-working voluntary and charity workers. It is an essential tool to maintain our competitiveness, safeguard our economic prosperity, reduce burdens on public services and improve the lives of all our citizens.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Oliver Heald: I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities. It is good to see her escape at last from the confines of the Whips Office, and we look forward to hearing her speak regularly. I join her in her thanks to the Select Committee Chairmen and all who have taken part in the discussions.
	The Bill was a mess at the beginning. It was not even the Bill on which the Government consulted. The proposals on which they consulted were very different. There has been a constant battle to try to get a Bill that really tackles deregulation, because we certainly need onemy goodness, we do. With a Government who are passing 15 regulations a day and increasing the burdens on business, whose extra costs are 50 billion since 1997, we need a Billbut not a bad one.
	We struggled in Committee. I tabled all the amendments suggested by the Regulatory Reform Committee and many suggested by other Committees of the House. All were rejected; the then Minister used to described them as debating points. Recently, however, common sense has been brought to bear on the problems and there has been a climbdown. I welcome new clauses 19 and 20, but they came so late in the day that we have not been able to tackle all the problems with the provisions. We still have issues about how to tackle the problems of small business and how to filter Law Commission Bills so that the most controversial are properly debated. We still have issues about the procedures to be adopted to give the House a veto.
	There are great time pressures tonight, so I cannot explain all the reasons why the Bill is not yet ready to become law, but I cannot stomach the idea that it should go to the other place with the approval of the Opposition.

John Gummer: In the short time that my hon. Friend has been given, will he kindly tell the House what part of the Minister's speech had any relevance or reference to the Bill? Most of us were unable to link the speech to the Bill.

Oliver Heald: Like many Members on the Opposition Benches, my right hon. Friend has a proud record on deregulation. The Minister was talking about deregulation, but just as there can be no good regulation without the right culture, there can be no deregulation without the right sort of legislation, and the Bill has a long way to go.

John Redwood: Did my hon. Friend find it as surprising as I did that after all those long debates, the Minister could not name one item that she would deregulate under the Bill? She said something about sorting out licensing that was not deregulatory, but she did not even seem to know about the Parliamentary Secretary's pledge to get rid of game licences. Does that mean that since yesterday, they have decided that they will no longer even get rid of game licences?

Oliver Heald: I will make one final point to show that the Bill is not good enough. The Department of Trade and Industry website shows new legislation proposed for the coming year. There are 40 pages of proposals. Nowhere in Government is there a similar website showing which measures will be deregulated. Until that happens, the Government will not solve the problems of their culture of regulation and burdens on business.

Andrew Miller: I should like to spend just one minute thanking hon. Members, including the members of Select Committees, for taking the work that we have done on the Regulatory Reform Committee so seriously. In particular, I thank the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), for the work that he did when he was the Minister with responsibility for the Bill, and I thank the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden) for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with his new responsibility. We have made progress, but more steps are still necessary, and I urge Ministers to think carefully about the commitments that they have given during our proceedings over the past two days. I am certain that we will have a Bill that enables us to proceed productively, by deregulating in the way that all parties in the House want.

David Heath: This started off as a Bill with a benign intent, but it was nonsense, preposterous and deeply dangerous. It been marginally improved over the past two days, but there are still deep concerns about the way in which it will operate, deep concerns about its scope and deep concerns about the Government's inability to provide a proper veto. There is scarcely more than a caveat

It being Ten o'clock Mr. Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [15 May].
	 The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 213.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

THE SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Ordered,
	That the Speaker have leave of absence on Thursday 15th June to attend the National Service of Thanksgiving at St Paul's Cathedral to mark Her Majesty's eightieth birthday. [Mr. Roy.]

PETITION

Council Tax

Tom Brake: I wish to present a petition from Clare Nunns that has been signed by 175 residents of Carshalton and Wallington. It concerns the IsItFair campaign to scrap the unfair council tax and replace it with a fairer system that is based on people's ability to pay.
	The petition states:
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	 To lie upon the Table.

BOWEL CANCER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Roy.]

Ian Gibson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about bowel cancer, because many members of the public and Members of the House have experience of members of their families, or perhaps themselves, having the prognostication of bowel cancer and know of its effects on their lives. We have a real opportunity in this country to make a difference on bowel cancer, which is often called colorectal cancer, but it is my contention that we are not doing that as quickly as, or to the extent that, we ought to be.
	I do not want to go into the numbers, although we conventionally talk in such debates about the numbers of people who develop and die from a cancer. However, hon. Members can take it from me that the figure is up there in the thousands and thousands and that the problem is very serious indeed. The research that has gone on in this country and the United States will undoubtedly help us to tackle not only bowel cancer, but many other cancers. For example, in the United States, at the Johns Hopkins university in Baltimore, Bert Vogelstein has discovered something that is quite magnificent in the sense of what it tells us about the development of cancers. He has shown that five or seven individual events can take place, all of which are necessary to develop the full-blown cancer, which sadly can kill. The genetic changes that he has identified are an important illustration of what research can do. The interesting thing is that the order in which they happen is not A, B, C, D, E, F, G and so on, but A-C, E-F and so on in different individuals. As a  New Statesman article next week will prove, that shows that cancer research is telling us much more about how cancers progress from one stage to the next. It is not that someone has it and everything else is inevitable. The research shows that early detection not only of a genetic event, but of other events as well, is important and can help to save lives. My contention is that we can save thousands of people's lives if we take the subject much more seriously.
	Many people will say that bowel cancer is caused by diet and we can prevent it by taking care of what we eat. Lots is going on in that sector, but it is not the subject of the debate. We must have a process of screening individuals, and it is which individuals and when we screen them that is the subject of the debate going on not just in this country, but across the world.
	We have been lucky with some of the research into bowel cancer because we can say things about the disease that we cannot say about other important cancers. The major screening programmes are for cervical cancer, breast cancer and bowel cancer, but bowel cancer is the only disease for which we have additional information about the stages that happen in the process. We have not quite reached that point with the other cancers.
	How do we screen individuals? People can look at their stools and faecesI cannot use rude words in the Chamber, but I hope that people know what stools and faeces arefor blood that might be present. They can do it themselves by taking the stool and faeces and passing it on to the experts to analyse whether blood has been exuded from the body. If it has been, further tests can be done. The faecal occult testit sounds like a religious groupis used for men and women aged between 60 and 69. It is very effective in what it does, because the next stage illustrates what we can do with the result. However, we need to ask why 60 to 69why not 70, 75, 80 and so on? That is true for many other screening technologies, including breast cancer.
	If there is evidence that blood is exuded by an individual, the next process is flexible sigmoidoscopy, which has been used in pilot studies of people aged over 50. A small flexible tube, with a camera attached, is inserted through a person's rear passage. We would not all welcome that, but it does happen. I and others I know have been through that. It is quite exciting to lie there and look at one's insidesparts of our bodies that we have not seen beforeon a screen. It is better done after lunch and dinner, of course, and certainly after breakfast. However, it is interesting what one can see.
	It is possible to see lesions and polyps on the screen. Polyps are little structures that may have developed at a certain stage in someone's lifetime, perhaps over a period of eating certain foods, or whatever the factors are that induce their existence. When the doctor sees those structures, he gets the message. One can eliminate those polyps, which appear at an extremely early stage in the development of bowel cancer, and people can survive for many years if they do not develop the disease. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is an important procedure in identifying the early stages of bowel cancer.
	The cancer can develop beyond that stage and, sadly, it has done so in most of the cases with which I am familiar, including that of my brother. Very little can be done, as the cancer has entered a different phase and spread to the liver. In such cases, even surgery will not extend someone's life by many years, so early detection is extremely important. Removal of the polyps is even more important, as mutations, changes and so on can be detected in those structures. Rectal insertion is not the only technology used to tackle the disease. New scanners have been developed that allow us to look at people's insides, so we can discover the polyps in their bowels without inserting an instrument in their rear passage.
	We can argue about whether people should be screened at 50, 60, 69 and so on, but we need to consider the issue of take-up. Thankfully, the Government have introduced screening, but take-up is only 60 per cent. That is understandable, as people do not want to undergo such a test. Men, in particular, do not like such procedures or the effects on their bodies. The position is even worse for certain groups, where take-up is less than 60 per cent. Screening is not worth while if people do not use it. Recently, I received a paper from Warwick, De Montfort and Essex universities on take-up among black and ethnic communities. Before rectal insertion, a faecal occult blood test is necessary: people collect three samples over three daysgoodness knows where they keep them, as they cannot be stored in a fridge with foodand send them for analysis. For various cultural reasons, black and ethnic communities do not like to take that test. That is understandablemy researchers, who come from different cultural backgrounds, said that it was disgusting. The take-up among much of the multi-cultural community therefore falls below 60 per cent. to 30 per cent. and even lower. We await better tests, as many people are not taking up that test.
	The national health service records the results of the tests, and flexible sigmoidoscopy is carried out. The problem of take-up has been tackled by Cancer BACUP, which has produced leaflets encouraging people to take the test. It has a great deal of experience of talking to people with breast and cervical cancer, urging them to take tests that can save their lives. However, low take-up is a huge dilemma, and I urge the Government to increase it. I do not think that we will ever achieve 100 per cent. take-up, but we can do better than 20 or 30 per cent. in certain communities. Indeed, we can do better than 60 per cent.
	There is inequality in our society, and not just in black and ethnic groups. The politics of cancer in the United Kingdom is the politics of deprivation and the poverty of many people. Not only do they suffer more pollution and eat cheaper, poor quality food, but they do not take up the diagnostic tests. I run the all-party cancer group. Our conference this year, Britain against Cancer, will be about the inequalities in our society, where certain groups of people who come from certain backgrounds do not take up the tests that are available.
	I urge the Government to regard that as a priority and to do more about it. It is all right to say, Eat more fruit. Eat more organic food, but as I know, the surge in the green vote in Norwich, which is all about eating organic fruit, involves the middle classes. On the working class estates in my constituency, people do not eat organic foods. They go to Lidl and buy food as cheaply as they can. The difference in the diseases that they get reflects the difference in lifestyle. We must take on the class problem and factors such as what people eat, where they live, the pollution that they encounter, and so on. I urge the Government to do more about that.
	I know that the Department of Health is trying to do more and to induce people to be tested. The Department must speak much more to the relevant charities and groups. Bowel Cancer UK and Beating Bowel Cancer have great experience of talking to the population and thinking about the problems. We need a taskforce to encourage people to come forward and take the test.
	What have the Government done? In no way am I suggesting that they have done nothing. They have, for example, set up various pilot schemes, which have been quite successful. In certain parts of the midlands they have saved around 250 lives. Saving 250 lives by testing for bowel cancer is pretty good news. We could make that 20,500 lives if we extended it to other parts of the country. There have been some delays in getting money into such programmes, but in April 2006, after a little flurry here and there, we managed to get 10 million for the first year of a bowel cancer screening programme, with the help of the national cancer screening programme. That is good, but what will happen in years 2 and 3?
	At a Britain against Cancer conference, the then Minister spoke of a three-year programme tackling bowel cancer. There is some scepticism about that. I want to hear tonight, please, that years 2 and 3 will happen. We have a hub and a screening centre, but we promised that there would be five hubs and 13 screening centres across the country. It has been proven that the one existing hub and the screening that is going on can save lives, and we could save many more lives. There is very good news. It is a winner, and do we need winners in this area of health! Does the Minister agree?
	When people die of bowel cancer, I find it difficult not to wonder why the disease was not diagnosed sooner, why the treatment was not effective, why the polyp was not removed and so on, and why their lives were not saved. That is a challenge for the Government. We need to discuss how we will raise awareness, engage the charities, get leaflets out, engage with the communities and at what level, to make sure they know that there is good news and that the technology for dealing with the disease is improving.
	We need to know where the programme will happen. I will love it when it is rolled out in Norwich and Great Yarmoutheverything happens there eventuallyand the pilots seem to have been effective.
	We need to know whether the Government have estimated how many lives might be saved, and I wonder whether the NHS can find the extra money. It was said that some 35 million would be found over three years, but will that happen? When will we know that the money is in place for years 2 and 3?
	We must consider the capacity issues. What about the personnel who will conduct the tests? We need nurse specialists to look after patients, cancer doctors, pharmacists and stoma nurses. I do not think that people will not respond because of the nature of the cancer.
	I want to hear from the Minister tonight that the programme will happen over the next three years, the three years after that and the three years after that, because it is a win-win situation. If the programme is successful in bowel cancer, progress will be made on prostate cancer, because there will be discoveries in that field, toothere will be discoveries across the spectrum of cancers over the next few years. We can show in this country that the best treatment for any particular cancer comes from early screening.

Ivan Lewis: I begin by congratulatingmy hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North(Dr. Gibson) on securing this important Adjournment debate on what all hon. Members regard as an extremely important issue. I am not sure whether I thank him for going into so much detail in describing the nature of the condition and some of the treatment, but he brought the matter to life and revealed the reality of what many individuals go through at a very stressful time in their lives.
	I want to put the matter in context before responding directly to some of my hon. Friend's specific questions. Bowel cancer is the second largest cancer killer in England, accounting for more than 14,000 deaths a year. Around 28,000 bowel cancers a year are diagnosed, and, sadly, the disease has historically poor survival rates. It can be difficult to recognise bowel cancer, as symptoms are often not reported at an early stage and can be similar to less serious conditions, which is why we need, as my hon. Friend has said, a proper national screening programme.
	Research undertaken in Nottingham and Denmark in the 1980s showed that screening men and women for bowel cancer using the faecal occult blood test could reduce the mortality rate from bowel cancer by 15 per cent. in those screened, and an independently evaluated pilot in Warwickshire and Scotland showed that that research can be replicated in a national health service setting. Based on the final evaluation report of the pilot and a formal options appraisal, we announced that the NHS bowel cancer programme would begin screening men and women aged 60 to 69 from April 2006.
	I can confirm that the bowel cancer screening programme is definitely being rolled out over the next three years, as confirmed in the White Paper, Our health, our care, our say, which was published in January. The programme is one of the first national bowel cancer screening programmes in Europe, and the first cancer screening programme in England to involve men as well as women.
	My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we have always intended to have a three-year phased roll-out of this substantial new national programme. However, we cannot put an entire screening programme in place in a single year. We estimate that around 10 million will be spent on the first year of the programme. Funding decisions have not yet been made for future years, but we are committed to ensuring that the necessary funding is available to see through the full implementation of the programme.

Russell Brown: I share the admiration expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North for what the Government have done. I also appreciate that the health service is a devolved issue in Scotland, and we all want to see a standard service across the country. The screening programme in Scotland will not begin until March next year, which is some 11 months late. However, it covers an age range of 50 to 74, which is far more significant than that covered in England. I hope that as we progress through the three-year programme we will start to extend the age range that is covered.

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As we progress through the three-year period and the screening programme develops, we will keep that under review and look to learn from our Scottish colleagues.
	It is probably useful for both my hon. Friends to be aware that 100,000 testing kits have been ordered from the supplier for the purposes of the necessary screening programme. We estimate that between 100,000 and 120,000 men and women will be screened by the programme by March 2007. We believe that a very innovative model has been developed for our national bowel screening programme. For example, men and women will be sent a testing kit to complete in the privacy of their own homes. My hon. Friend referred to the importance of dignity and sensitivity in the way that we handle this. We believe that about 2 per cent. of those who take the faecal occult bloodFOBtest will be positive and will be invited for a full colonoscopy. It is likely that about one in 10 of those will be found to have bowel cancer. It is probable that a further four out of 10 will be found to have polyps that can be treated to prevent the possibility of bowel cancer developing at all.
	When fully rolled out, the programme is expected to detect around 3,000 bowel cancers a year. As my hon. Friend said, five programme hubs across England will invite men and women to participate in the programme, sending out FOB testing kits, interpreting the kits and sending out results. There will then be 90 to 100 local screening centres providing endoscopy services for the 2 per cent. of men and women who have a positive FOB test result. The pilot in Rugby will continue to run to the end of March 2007. The first of the five programme hubs will also be established in Rugby because of the substantial experience and expertise gained through the pilot. That programme hub will start by inviting men and women in Wolverhampton to participate in the screening programme. It will eventually cover the west midlands and north-west England. NHS cancer screening programmes are currently assessing where the other programme hubs will be located, and announcements will be made as soon as possible. We heard my hon. Friend's bid for his own part of the world, which would be expected in the course of such a debate.
	We intend that by March 2007, all five programme hubs will be established and around 14 local screening centres will be operating. Last August, strategic health authorities were asked to bid for their local endoscopy units to become local screening centres as part of the first wave of the programme in 2006-07. Similar exercises will take place for the second wave in 2007-08 and the third wave in 2008-09. It is up to SHAs to decide where local screening centres should be located for the benefit of their own populations. In particular, SHAs need to take into account the efficiency of their service for patients with bowel cancer symptoms to ensure that those are not affected by the local introduction of bowel screening.
	Preparations for the roll-out of the programme have been going on for some years. As my hon. Friend said, training in the necessary bowel scoping is vital to the diagnosis of bowel cancer. A national training programme has been established to train specialist staff to carry out vital procedures for diagnosing bowel cancer. Based on current trends and definitions, the training programme is projected to develop training for 1,573 specialists by 2006-07.

Ian Gibson: Will my hon. Friend say something about how we are going to increase awareness in people about having this particular test, because unless they think that it is going to preserve their life, they will not undertake it?

Ivan Lewis: I will come to that in the moment.
	I want to spend a couple of minutes on research, because I know that my hon. Friend rightly has a long-established track record in being concerned about that. I can assure him that as we roll out the bowel screening programme nationally, it will be fully evaluated. We are also looking at flexible sigmoidoscopy, which is another potential way of screening for bowel cancer using a flexible bowel scope. Based on the promising results of a Cancer Research UK trial, we are funding a demonstration study atSt. Mark's hospital, and inviting men and women aged 58 to be screened. The study is costing 300,000 and is expected to report in two years.
	My hon. Friend has just asked me about communications. We established a bowel cancer communications group in 2005 with representatives from some of the organisations that he mentioned earlier, including Cancer Research UK, Bowel Cancer UK, Beating Bowel Cancer, Cancer BACUP and the Men's Health Forum. I would like to pay tribute to those colleagues in the stakeholder groups for their hard work and support in taking this forward. The communications group is considering all aspects of communications, including reaching ethnic minority communitiesmy hon. Friend also raised that issueas well as people from deprived areas and hard-to-reach groups. Bowel cancer screening leaflets, which will be sent out with each invitation, will be translated into a number of languages, as happens now in breast and cervical screening. Lessons are also being learned on how to reach these groups from the existing breast and cervical screening programmes and from the bowel cancer screening pilot.
	The screening programme will save thousands of lives, but we are also taking further steps to tackle the disease. As my hon. Friend said, poor diet is associated with bowel cancer, and our five-a-day programme is promoting the increased consumption of fruit and vegetables. Early detection other than through screening is also important. That is why we are working with professionals and key stakeholders to develop awareness programmes. We are also looking at decision-supporting tools to aid GPs in referring patients appropriately.
	On the treatment side, we are funding a multi-disciplinary training programme in a precision technique called total mesorectal excision, which results in lower rates of recurrence of cancer and the reduced need for long-term colostomy. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published updated guidance in Improving Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer in June 2004, and it has published appraisals on the use of five drugs for the treatment of advanced bowel cancer.
	I hope that I have demonstrated to my hon. Friends that the Government are fully committed to tackling cancer, and to the full implementation of the national health service bowel cancer programme. Bowel cancer is a serious condition that acutely affects not only the individuals concerned but their families and loved ones. It is time that we took the issue seriously and understood the potential consequences to individuals and to society of this horrendous disease. The Government can be proud of their record in putting in place a national screening programme for the first time. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. One life lost to the disease is one too many, and we have a solemn duty to do everything that we can to ensure that we detect the condition and treat it quickly, so that people do not have to suffer the horrendous consequences that have, sadly, led to deaths of far too many people in our society over the years.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate and shining a light on this important issue. Some people might find it difficult to talk about, but it is extremely important that parliamentarians consider the issue, and I am delighted that he has asked the Government to account for themselves tonight
	 The motion having been made after Ten o'clock,and the debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.